Tianxiang Yu v. Shanghai Sishun E-commerce Co., Ltd

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-09772
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 TIANXIANG YU, Case № 2:24-cv-09772-ODW (PVCx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EMAIL ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 14 OF PROCESS [30] SHANGHAI SISHUN E-COMMERCE 15 CO., LTD. et al.,

17 Defendants.

18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Tianxiang Yu brings this patent infringement action against Defendants 21 Shanghai Sishun E-Commerce Co. Ltd., Fengsheng Wang, Guangzhou Mufeng 22 International Trade Co., Ltd., Wuhan Hongmedia Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd., 23 Shushu Chen, and Hong Kong Yinta International Trade Company Limited. (Compl., 24 ECF No. 1.) Yu moves for an order authorizing service on the unserved Defendants 25 by email through their respective counsel. (Mot. Alt. Serv. (“Motion” or “Mot.”), 26 ECF No. 30). For reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motion.1 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 On November 13, 2024, Yu filed a complaint against Defendants for patent 3 infringement. (Compl.). To date, Yu has served all Defendants but Shanghai Sishun 4 E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Sishun”) and Wuhan Hongmedia Electronic Commerce Co., 5 Ltd. (“Hongmedia”). (See Waiver Service, ECF Nos. 23, 25–27.) Sishun and 6 Hongmedia have a physical location in China. (Mot. 6, 9 (providing Sishun’s address 7 in China), 11 (providing Hongmedia’s address in China).) 8 Service on Sishun. On or around August 30, 2024, Yu’s counsel sent a 9 cease-and-desist letter to Sishun’s physical address in China and email contact. (Decl. 10 Zhen Yang Pan ISO Mot. (“Pan Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–5, ECF No. 30-3.) Sishun’s counsel, 11 Sophia Yin, acknowledged receipt of the cease-and-desist letter and represented that 12 she was authorized to respond to the infringement allegations. (Id. ¶ 6. Ex. C (“Sishun 13 2024 Email”), ECF No. 30-4.) 14 On or around January 27, 2025, Yu’s counsel emailed the summons and 15 complaint to Yin. (Pan Decl. ¶ 9.) On February 6, 2025, Yin responded that Sishun 16 “does not accept email delivery” and provided Sishun’s company address in China for 17 Yu to serve the documents pursuant to the Hague Convention. (Pan Decl. Ex. F 18 (“Sishun 2025 Email”), ECF No. 30-4.) On or around February 18, 2025, Yu’s 19 counsel initiated service on Sishun through China’s Civil and Commercial Judicial 20 Assistance System (“CCJAS”), consistent with the Hague Convention. (Pan Decl. 21 ¶¶ 12, 15.) The latest system update from CCJAS shows that the case “has been 22 transferred to the Supreme People’s Court for further processing. Please wait 23 patiently for the result.” (Id. ¶ 16.) To date, CCJAS has yet to effect service on 24 Sishun. (Id.) 25 Service on Hongmedia. On August 30, 2024, Yu’s counsel sent a 26 cease-and-desist letter to Hongmedia’s physical address in China and email contact. 27 (Id. ¶¶ 17–18.) On or around February 16, 2025, Hongmedia’s counsel, Jianyin Liu, 28 contacted Yu’s counsel to discuss substantive issues concerning the First Amended 1 Complaint. (Id. ¶ 22.) Thereafter, on or around February 19, 2025, Yu’s counsel 2 emailed the summons and complaint to Liu and Liu agreed to accept and sign the 3 waiver of service. (Id. ¶ 23.) However, Liu later informed Yu’s counsel that he was 4 “not authorized by [Hongmedia] to accept the service” and that service must comply 5 with the Hague Convention. (Pan Decl. Ex. N (“Hongmedia Email”), ECF No. 30-4.) 6 On April 2, 2025, Yu moved the Court for authorization to serve Sishun and 7 Hongmedia by email or, alternatively, through their respective legal counsel. (First 8 Mot. Alt. Serv. (“First Mot.”), ECF No. 28.) The Court denied the motion on the 9 grounds that Yu failed to establish that (1) the Hague Convention does not apply; 10 (2) email service is permissible under the Hague Convention; (3) email service is 11 reasonably calculated to satisfy due process; and (4) service on Sishun’s and 12 Hongmedia’s counsel is permissible. (Order Den. First Mot., ECF No. 29.) 13 Yu now renews the motion and moves the Court for an order authorizing 14 service on Sishun and Hongmedia by email through their respective counsel. (Mot.) 15 III. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process 17 on a foreign business entity in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for individuals in 18 foreign countries. Service on foreign individuals may be effected “by any 19 internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, 20 such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 21 and Extrajudicial Documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). 22 Alternatively, Rule 4(f)(3) permits service on individuals in a foreign country 23 “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” “As 24 obvious from its plain language, service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the 25 court; and (2) not prohibited by international agreement.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l 26 Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). “[D]etermining when the 27 particularities and necessities of a given case require alternate service of process under 28 Rule 4(f)(3)” is left “to the sound discretion of the district court.” Id. at 1016. To 1 satisfy constitutional norms of due process, the alternate service must be “reasonably 2 calculated” under the circumstances to provide the defendant with notice of the action 3 and the opportunity to raise objections. Id. Rule 4(f)(3) is not a “last resort” nor 4 “extraordinary relief” and is “merely one means among several which enables service 5 of process on an international defendant.” Id. at 1015. 6 IV. DISCUSSION 7 Yu seeks to serve Sishun and Hongmedia—entities that Yu represents are 8 physically located in China—by email through their respective counsel. (Mot. 3.) As 9 the moving party seeking to establish that service by email is appropriate, Yu must 10 show that “(1) international agreement does not prohibit service by email; and 11 (2) service by email is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the 12 defendants.” Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. v. CIA Wheel Grp., No. 8:15-cv-00246- 13 DOC (DFMx), 2016 WL 1251008, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016). 14 Yu provides that Sishun and Hongmedia are foreign business entities located in 15 China, and that China is a signatory to the Hague Convention. (Mot. 6.) The Hague 16 Convention applies to its signatories “in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, 17 where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service 18 abroad.” Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents 19 in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”), Art. 1, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. Compliance is mandatory in all cases to which the 21 Hague Convention applies. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 22 694, 705 (1988). 23 As a signatory to the Hague Convention, China agrees to make the Hague 24 Convention’s procedures “the exclusive mechanism for service of documents abroad” 25 such that “methods not authorized under the [Hague] Convention are ‘prohibited by 26 international agreement.’” Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Fenda USA Inc., 734 F. Supp. 27 3d 960, 965 (N.D. Cal. 2024). “Service by email does not fall within one of the 28 Hague Convention’s ‘approved methods of service’ and China has not affirmatively 1 agreed to” service by email. Flying Heliball, LLC v. Zero Zero Robotics, Inc., 2 No. 8:24-cv-01838-FWS (JDEx), 2025 WL 464323, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025). 3 China also objected to Article 10 of the Hague Convention, which “creates a carve- 4 out,” if certain conditions are met, to allow specific types of service that would 5 otherwise be prohibited under the Hague Convention. PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. 6 Zoetop Bus., Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-02424-SPG (Ex), 2022 WL 20275664, at *3–4 7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2022). Thus, “the Hague Convention preempts service by email in 8 China unless an exception applies.” Flying Heliball, 2025 WL 464323, at *3. 9 Yu does not argue that the Hague Convention is inapplicable or that an 10 exception applies. (See generally Mot.) Instead, he broadly asserts that district 11 courts, including those in this district, “have routinely permitted alternate service of 12 process notwithstanding the applicability of the Hague Convention." (Id. at 6.) In 13 support of this argument, Yu cites to several cases.2 14 First, Yu relies on In re LDK Solar Securities Litigation, No. C 07-05182 WHA, 15 2008 WL 2415186 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2008), for the proposition that alternative 16 service may be permitted when attempting “potentially fruitless” service through the 17 Hague Convention in China. (Mot. 6.) However, LDK is inapposite. The plaintiffs in 18 LDK did not seek authorization for service by email; rather, they moved for an order 19 permitting service on the unserved defendants through the defendants’ California 20 office. LDK, 2008 WL 2415186, at *1. The court in LDK specifically noted that the 21 plaintiffs were not seeking to serve by postal channels because they did “not request to 22 effect service in China via mail.” Id. at *3. Conversely, Yu seeks to serve Sishun and 23 Hongmedia by postal channels via email through their respective counsel, and at least 24 one counsel appears to be located in China. (See Sishun Email (indicating Sishun’s 25 counsel is from “Tahota (Shenzhen) Law Office”).) Accordingly, Yu’s reliance on 26 LDK is unpersuasive. 27

28 2 Yu cites to several out of circuit cases. (Mot. 6.) The Court is not persuaded by the out of circuit authority and need not address them. 1 Next, Yu cites to Rio to argue that the Court has broad discretion to grant 2 || alternative service. (Mot. 7.) However, Rio involved service in a country that had not 3 || signed the Hague Convention. 284 F.3d at 1015 n.4 (“[T]he Hague Convention does 4|| not apply in this case because Costa Rica is not a signatory.”). Here, China is a 5 || signatory to the Hague Convention. Therefore, even under Rio, Yu must demonstrate 6 || that email service is “not prohibited by international agreement.” Jd. at 1014. Yu does 7 || not argue that an exception applies that would permit email service under the Hague 8 | Convention. (See generally Mot.) 9 Accordingly, as Yu fails at the outset to show either that (1) the Hague 10 || Convention permits email service or (2) that an exception applies, the Court DENIES 11 || the Motion. See Flying Heliball, 2025 WL 464323, at *4 (denying motion for 12 || alternative service by email on defendants located in China because plaintiff does “not 13 || establish[] that an exception applies”). The Court thus declines to consider whether 14|| Yu shows that service on Sishun’s and Hongmedia’s counsel would satisfy due 15 | process. 16 Vv. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Yu’s Motion. (ECF No. 30.) This 18 || denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE should circumstances demonstrate an applicable 19 || exception to the Hague Convention. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Sy 23 July 7, 2025 buedlig 24 25 ( OTIS D. WRIGHT, I 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE