1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TV EARS, INC., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01708-WQH-BGS
Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 JOYSHIYA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; SHENZHEN 15 SUPERSTAR ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; SHENZHEN 16 JOYSHIYA ELECTRONIC CO. 17 LTD.; SHENZHEN SIMOLIO 18 ELECTRONIC CO., LTD; and ZHUOYA GAO, an individual, 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 The matters pending before the Court are the Renewed Ex Parte Motion Authorizing 22 Alternate Service of Process on Defendants (ECF No. 12) and the Ex Parte Motion 23 Extending Time for Service (ECF No. 13) filed by Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. 24 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 25 On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. initiated this action by filing a 26 Complaint against Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar 27 28 1 Electronics Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd.; and Zhuoya Gao. (ECF No. 2 1). 3 On October 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion Authorizing Alternate 4 Service of Process on Defendants. (ECF No. 7). On October 26, 2020, the Court denied 5 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants. (ECF 6 No. 8). The Court found that “Plaintiff fail[ed] to present sufficient facts to demonstrate 7 that Plaintiff ha[d] been reasonably diligent in seeking to locate Defendants and that service 8 by delivering the summons, Complaint, and all other filings in this matter to Defendants 9 via e[]mail [wa]s ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 10 [Defendants] of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 11 objections.’” Id. at 7 (fifth alteration in original). The Court further found that “Plaintiff 12 fail[ed] to identify specific email addresses for all Defendants and fail[ed] to demonstrate 13 an ability to contact Defendants via email.” Id. 14 On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. filed an Amended Complaint against 15 Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; 16 Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd; and Zhuoya 17 Gao. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in the “unauthorized 18 use of Plaintiff’s trademarks in connection with the manufacture, distribution, marketing, 19 advertising, promotion, offering for sale, and/or sale of Defendants’ wireless TV audio 20 products and/or in Defendants’ unauthorized use, importation, offer for sale, and sale of 21 Defendants’ wireless TV audio products.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff brings the following ten 22 causes of action: (1) federal trademark infringement; (2) infringement of United States 23 Design Patent No. D582,900; (3) federal trademark counterfeiting; (4) federal trade dress 24 infringement; (5) federal unfair competition and false designation; (6) federal dilution by 25 blurring; (7) trademark infringement under the common law; (8) California Unfair 26 Competition; (9) contributory trademark infringement; and (10) contributory patent 27 infringement. See id. at 35-45. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief; declaratory relief; treble, 28 enhanced, and statutory damages; accounting and paying over to Plaintiff Defendants’ 1 profits; costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and “such other and further relief as the Court 2 deems just and proper.” Id. at 45-46. 3 On December 11, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause for failure to serve. 4 (ECF No. 11). On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Ex Parte Motion 5 Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants. (ECF No. 12). On December 6 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion Extending Time for Service. (ECF No. 13). 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff “requests an order authorizing service of process on Defendants via 9 electronic mail . . . .” (ECF No. 12 at 2). Plaintiff contends that “[a]lternate service by 10 e[]mail is appropriate and necessary in this case because Defendants (1) operate via the 11 Internet, (2) rely on electronic communications to operate their businesses, and (3) can be 12 contacted via specific email addresses, which Plaintiff has established are valid working 13 emails.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that “Defendants maintain addresses in the People’s Republic 14 of China (‘China’) and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s 15 Republic of China (‘Hong Kong’) of unknown authenticity.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts 16 that “there is no clear non-speculative addresses to serve Defendants in China” and that 17 “[n]one of the addresses provided by Defendants on their websites and other public 18 information show as an address in location/map search.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff asserts that 19 “the emails and related online contact forms for all named Defendants are all working, with 20 no emails failing to send, being bounced back or returned undeliverable.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff 21 contends that “[s]ince the Defendants appear to be concealing their identities and contact 22 information through a multiplicity of e[]mail addresses, names, and locations, Plaintiff will 23 almost certainly be left without the ability to pursue a remedy absent the ability to serve 24 Defendants by e[]mail.” Id. at 4. 25 Plaintiff contends that service by email comports with constitutional notions of due 26 process by apprising Defendants of the action and giving them the opportunity to answer 27 Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff contends that service by email is the most effective and reliable 28 means of providing Defendants with notice of this action. Plaintiff asserts that it has 1 diligently pursued various means of providing notice to Defendants and has identified 2 specific email addresses for each Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that it and has sent emails to 3 each Defendant using the identified email addresses. Plaintiff asserts that each of the email 4 addresses are valid and operational and that emails sent to Defendants were delivered and 5 received because Plaintiff received no error messages, bounced back emails, or 6 notifications regarding undeliverability. Plaintiff asserts that it received affirmative 7 responses and submission confirmation messages from some of the email addresses. 8 Plaintiff contends that the email address Defendant Gao provided to the United States 9 Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is a valid and operational email address through 10 which to notify Defendant Gao of the pendency of this action. 11 Plaintiff bears the burden of effectuating proof of service. See Butcher’s Union 12 Local No. 498, United Food and Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538 13 (9th Cir. 1986). To meet the due process requirement, “the method of service crafted by 14 the district court must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 15 interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present 16 their objections.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 17 2002). 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) states that 19 (f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TV EARS, INC., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01708-WQH-BGS
Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 JOYSHIYA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; SHENZHEN 15 SUPERSTAR ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; SHENZHEN 16 JOYSHIYA ELECTRONIC CO. 17 LTD.; SHENZHEN SIMOLIO 18 ELECTRONIC CO., LTD; and ZHUOYA GAO, an individual, 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 The matters pending before the Court are the Renewed Ex Parte Motion Authorizing 22 Alternate Service of Process on Defendants (ECF No. 12) and the Ex Parte Motion 23 Extending Time for Service (ECF No. 13) filed by Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. 24 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 25 On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. initiated this action by filing a 26 Complaint against Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar 27 28 1 Electronics Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd.; and Zhuoya Gao. (ECF No. 2 1). 3 On October 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion Authorizing Alternate 4 Service of Process on Defendants. (ECF No. 7). On October 26, 2020, the Court denied 5 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants. (ECF 6 No. 8). The Court found that “Plaintiff fail[ed] to present sufficient facts to demonstrate 7 that Plaintiff ha[d] been reasonably diligent in seeking to locate Defendants and that service 8 by delivering the summons, Complaint, and all other filings in this matter to Defendants 9 via e[]mail [wa]s ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 10 [Defendants] of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 11 objections.’” Id. at 7 (fifth alteration in original). The Court further found that “Plaintiff 12 fail[ed] to identify specific email addresses for all Defendants and fail[ed] to demonstrate 13 an ability to contact Defendants via email.” Id. 14 On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. filed an Amended Complaint against 15 Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; 16 Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd; and Zhuoya 17 Gao. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in the “unauthorized 18 use of Plaintiff’s trademarks in connection with the manufacture, distribution, marketing, 19 advertising, promotion, offering for sale, and/or sale of Defendants’ wireless TV audio 20 products and/or in Defendants’ unauthorized use, importation, offer for sale, and sale of 21 Defendants’ wireless TV audio products.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff brings the following ten 22 causes of action: (1) federal trademark infringement; (2) infringement of United States 23 Design Patent No. D582,900; (3) federal trademark counterfeiting; (4) federal trade dress 24 infringement; (5) federal unfair competition and false designation; (6) federal dilution by 25 blurring; (7) trademark infringement under the common law; (8) California Unfair 26 Competition; (9) contributory trademark infringement; and (10) contributory patent 27 infringement. See id. at 35-45. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief; declaratory relief; treble, 28 enhanced, and statutory damages; accounting and paying over to Plaintiff Defendants’ 1 profits; costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and “such other and further relief as the Court 2 deems just and proper.” Id. at 45-46. 3 On December 11, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause for failure to serve. 4 (ECF No. 11). On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Ex Parte Motion 5 Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants. (ECF No. 12). On December 6 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion Extending Time for Service. (ECF No. 13). 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff “requests an order authorizing service of process on Defendants via 9 electronic mail . . . .” (ECF No. 12 at 2). Plaintiff contends that “[a]lternate service by 10 e[]mail is appropriate and necessary in this case because Defendants (1) operate via the 11 Internet, (2) rely on electronic communications to operate their businesses, and (3) can be 12 contacted via specific email addresses, which Plaintiff has established are valid working 13 emails.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that “Defendants maintain addresses in the People’s Republic 14 of China (‘China’) and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s 15 Republic of China (‘Hong Kong’) of unknown authenticity.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts 16 that “there is no clear non-speculative addresses to serve Defendants in China” and that 17 “[n]one of the addresses provided by Defendants on their websites and other public 18 information show as an address in location/map search.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff asserts that 19 “the emails and related online contact forms for all named Defendants are all working, with 20 no emails failing to send, being bounced back or returned undeliverable.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff 21 contends that “[s]ince the Defendants appear to be concealing their identities and contact 22 information through a multiplicity of e[]mail addresses, names, and locations, Plaintiff will 23 almost certainly be left without the ability to pursue a remedy absent the ability to serve 24 Defendants by e[]mail.” Id. at 4. 25 Plaintiff contends that service by email comports with constitutional notions of due 26 process by apprising Defendants of the action and giving them the opportunity to answer 27 Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff contends that service by email is the most effective and reliable 28 means of providing Defendants with notice of this action. Plaintiff asserts that it has 1 diligently pursued various means of providing notice to Defendants and has identified 2 specific email addresses for each Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that it and has sent emails to 3 each Defendant using the identified email addresses. Plaintiff asserts that each of the email 4 addresses are valid and operational and that emails sent to Defendants were delivered and 5 received because Plaintiff received no error messages, bounced back emails, or 6 notifications regarding undeliverability. Plaintiff asserts that it received affirmative 7 responses and submission confirmation messages from some of the email addresses. 8 Plaintiff contends that the email address Defendant Gao provided to the United States 9 Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is a valid and operational email address through 10 which to notify Defendant Gao of the pendency of this action. 11 Plaintiff bears the burden of effectuating proof of service. See Butcher’s Union 12 Local No. 498, United Food and Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538 13 (9th Cir. 1986). To meet the due process requirement, “the method of service crafted by 14 the district court must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 15 interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present 16 their objections.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 17 2002). 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) states that 19 (f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual--other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a 20 person whose waiver has been filed--may be served at a place not within any 21 judicial district of the United States: (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably 22 calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague 23 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; 24 (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international 25 agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice: 26 (A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that 27 country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction; 28 1 (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or 2 (C) unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law, by: 3 (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or 4 (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and 5 sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or 6 (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the 7 court orders.
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) states that 9 (h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law 10 provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that 11 is subject to suit under a common name, must be served: 12 (1) in a judicial district of the United States: (A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an 13 individual; or 14 (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent 15 authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process 16 and--if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires--by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant; or 17 (2) at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any 18 manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i). 19
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court; (2) not 21 prohibited by international agreement; and (3) comport with constitutional notions of due 22 process. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014-16. 23 A. Prohibition by International Agreement 24 Plaintiff’s attorney has previously stated in a sworn declaration that he “reviewed 25 the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in 26 Civil and Commercial Matters (‘Hague Convention’), to which China, and Hong Kong are 27 signatories.” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 7-1 at 5-6 (footnote omitted). Plaintiff’s 28 attorney has previously stated that “the Hague Convention does not preclude service by 1 e[]mail, and the declarations to the Hague Convention filed by China and Hong Kong do 2 not expressly prohibit e[]mail service.” Id., ECF No. 7-1 at 6. The Court has previously 3 found that service on Defendants through means of email is not prohibited by international 4 agreement. See ECF No. 8 at 6. 5 B. Reasonable Diligence in Seeking to Locate Defendants 6 Plaintiff’s attorney states in a sworn declaration that he identified an address in China 7 for Defendant Gao through “the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval 8 database” and “searched for this address in Google Maps on November 19, 2020 [but] did 9 not find any exact matches.” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 12-1 at 8. Plaintiff’s attorney 10 states that he identified addresses and phone numbers in China for Defendants Joyshiya 11 Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen Joyshiya 12 Electronic Co. Ltd.; and Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd. Id. ¶ 14, ECF No. 12-1 at 13 9. Plaintiff’s attorney states that he “searched for the addresses . . . in Google Maps on 14 November 19, 2020 which did not return any exact matches by which a non-speculative 15 location for service of process could be confirmed.” Id. ¶ 15, ECF No. 12-1 at 9. Plaintiff 16 presents sufficient facts to demonstrate that it has been reasonably diligent in seeking to 17 locate Defendants. 18 C. Constitutional Notions of Due Process 19 i. Service to Defendant Gao Via the Email Address 20 memorytechcenter@hotmail.com 21 Plaintiff identifies the email address memorytechcenter@hotmail.com as a means of 22 contact for Defendant Gao. See Schedule A, ECF No. 12 at 14. Plaintiff’s attorney and 23 paralegal state in sworn declarations that Defendant Gao “is identified as the owner of the 24 Joyshiya and Simolio trademark registrations on the . . . USPTO’s[] Trademark Status & 25 Document Retrieval database” and that “[t]he correspondence information with the 26 USPTO for Defendant [ ] G[ao] on these trademark registrations identifies an e[]mail 27 address of memorytechcenter @hotmail.com.” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 12-1 at 7; 28 see also Mason Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 12-2 at 3-4. Plaintiff’s paralegal states that she “sent 1 an email to the memorytechcenter @hotmail.com email address” and that “[t]he email did 2 not bounce back nor was it returned as being ‘undeliverable.’” Mason Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 3 12-2 at 3-4. Plaintiff presents sufficient facts to demonstrate that service of the summonses, 4 Amended Complaint, and all other filings in this matter to Defendant Gao via the email 5 address memorytechcenter @hotmail.com is “reasonably calculated, under all the 6 circumstances, to apprise [Defendant Gao] of the pendency of the action and afford []h[i]m 7 an opportunity to present [his] objections.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016; see e.g., 8 Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. v. CIA Wheel Grp., No. SA CV 15–0246–DOC (DFMx), 2016 9 WL 1251008, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016) (finding that service of process by email is 10 reasonably calculated to provide actual notice when a test email is not returned as 11 undeliverable or bounced back). 12 ii. Service to Corporate Defendants Via the Email Address 13 support@simolio.com 14 Plaintiff identifies the email address support@simolio.com as a means of contact for 15 Defendant Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd. See Schedule A, ECF No. 12 at 14. 16 Plaintiff’s attorney and paralegal state that Defendant Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., 17 Ltd “is specifically identified as the seller on the Simolio Direct storefront on Amazon” 18 and that the email address support@simolio.com “is associated with the Simolio Direct 19 storefront on Amazon . . . .” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 12-1 at 3; Mason Decl. ¶ 2, 20 ECF No. 12-2 at 2. Plaintiff’s attorney states that he “sent an email to the 21 support@simolio.com email address inquiring about SIMOLIO’S Amazon listing” and 22 that “[w]ithin twenty-four hours of [the] message, [Plaintiff] received a response from the 23 Simolio Direct Customer Service Team recommending that [Plaintiff] review a different 24 SIMOLIO product listing on Amazon.” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 12-1 at 3-4. 25 Plaintiff’s paralegal states that she “sent an email to the support@simolio.com email 26 address” and that “[t]he email did not bounce back nor was it returned as being 27 ‘undeliverable.’” Mason Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 12-2 at 2. Plaintiff presents sufficient facts 28 to demonstrate that service of the summonses, Amended Complaint, and all other filings 1 in this matter to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd via the email address 2 support@simolio.com is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 3 [Defendant Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd] of the pendency of the action and afford 4 [it] an opportunity to present [its] objections.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016; see e.g., 5 D.Light Design, Inc. v. Boxin Solar Co., No. C–13–5988 EMC, 2015 WL 526835, at *2 6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2015) (finding that service by email is reasonably calculated to provide 7 actual notice when test emails are delivered successfully and do not bounce back as 8 undeliverable); ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Sec. One Int’l, Inc., No. 11–CV–05149 YGR, 2012 9 WL 3580670, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012) (finding that service by email is reasonably 10 calculated to provide actual notice and is the method most likely to apprise defendants of 11 the action when test emails are not returned as undeliverable). 12 Plaintiff identifies the email address support@simolio.com as a means of contact for 13 Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; and 14 Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd. See Schedule A, ECF No. 12 at 14. Plaintiff’s 15 attorney states that Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar 16 Electronics Co. Ltd.; and Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd. “offer for sale and sell 17 goods under the SIMOLIO brand on Amazon.com through the Simolio Direct storefront.” 18 Klemptner Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 12-1 at 3. Plaintiff’s attorney states that “[t]he SIMOLIO 19 Amazon product listings identify support@simolio.com as the contact email for support 20 regarding these product listings.” Id. Plaintiff’s attorney states that Defendants Joyshiya 21 Development Limited; Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; and Shenzhen Joyshiya 22 Electronic Co. Ltd. “will be provided with notice of this action by e[]mail via the customer 23 support email address (support@simolio.com) listed on Amazon.com . . . .” Id. ¶ 11, ECF 24 No. 12-1 at 7. Service by email can satisfy due process and can be the most effective way 25 to provide notice when a foreign defendant conducts commercial internet activities and 26 structures its business online using email as the preferred contact method but fails to list an 27 easily discoverable street address. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1017-18; see e.g., Keck 28 v. Alibaba.com, Inc., No. 17-cv-05672-BLF, 2017 WL 10820533, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1 20, 2017) (same); Keck v. Alibaba.com, Inc., No. 17-cv-05672-BLF, 2018 WL 3632160, 2 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (same); Microsoft Corp. v. Goldah.com Network Tech. Co., 3 No. 17-CV-02896-LHK, 2017 WL 4536417, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) (“[W]here 4 defendants conduct commercial internet activities, email service is reasonably calculated 5 to apprise them of the suit and thus comports with due process.”). Plaintiff presents 6 sufficient facts to demonstrate that service of the summonses, Amended Complaint, and all 7 other filings in this matter to Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; Shenzhen 8 Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; and Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd. via the email 9 address support@simolio.com is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to 10 apprise [Defendants] of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to 11 present their objections” because “the particularities and necessities of [this] case require 12 alternate service of process under Rule 4(f)(3).” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016; see e.g., 13 Keck, 2018 WL 3632160, at *3 (same). 14 iii. Service to Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited and 15 Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd. Via Online Contact 16 Forms 17 Plaintiff identifies the websites https://joyshiyasalesberry.en.ec21.com/company 18 _contact_info.html and https://www.electronics1.com/electronics-suppliers/joyshiya as a 19 means of contact for Defendant Joyshiya Development Limited. See Schedule A, ECF No. 20 12 at 14. Plaintiff’s attorney states that Defendant Joyshiya Development Limited 21 “advertises, markets, supplies, and sell products, such as TV listening devices, on the 22 EC21.com Internet marketplace” and that “[t]he Contact page on the EC21.com website 23 for Defendant J[oyshiya] D[evelopment] L[imited] includes an online contact form found 24 here: https://www.ec21.com/global/basic/SendInquiry.jsp?inq_data=HomeCompany|joy 25 shiyasalesberry for sending an email communication . . . .” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 26 12-1 at 4. Plaintiff’s attorney and paralegal state that they “completed and submitted a 27 message through the online contact form . . . on the EC21.com website” and that “[t]he 28 message did not show any error message, appeared to be fully operational, did not bounce 1 back or result in an ‘undeliverable’ message return.” Id., ECF No. 12-1 at 4-5; see also 2 Mason Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 12-2 at 2-3. Plaintiff’s attorney states that Defendant Joyshiya 3 Development Limited “advertises, markets, supplies, and sells products, such as consumer 4 electronics, on the Electronics1.com platform” and that “[t]he Contact page for Defendant 5 J[oyshiya] D[evelopment] L[imited] on the Electronics1.com website includes an online 6 contact form found here: https://www.electronics1.com/electronics-suppliers/joyshiya for 7 sending electronic messages . . . .” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 12-1 at 5. Plaintiff’s 8 paralegal states that she “sent a message to Defendant J[oyshiya] D[evelopment] L[imited] 9 using the online contact form found here: https://www.electronics1.com/electronics- 10 suppliers/joyshiya” and that “[t]he message did not show any error message, appeared to 11 be fully operational, did not bounce back or result in an ‘undeliverable’ message return.” 12 Mason Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 12-2 at 3. 13 Plaintiff identifies the websites https://www.made-in-china.com/sendInquiry/prod_ 14 NbyxYPELHsWa_sojmbFMALnWq.html?from=shrom&type=free&page=p_detail and 15 https://detail.en.china.cn/provide/p128064003.html as a means of contact for Defendant 16 Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd. See Schedule A, ECF No. 12 at 14. Plaintiff’s 17 attorney states that Defendant Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd. “advertises, 18 markets, supplies, and sells products, such as TV listening devices, on the Made-in-China 19 e-commerce website (www.made-in-china.com)” and that “[t]he Made-in-China website 20 includes an online contact form found here: https://www.made-in-china.com/sendInquiry/ 21 prod_NbyxYPELHsWa_sojmbFMALnWq.html?from=shrom&type=free&page=p_detail 22 for sending a message . . . .” Klemptner Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 12-1 at 5. Plaintiff’s attorney 23 states that he “completed and submitted a message through the online contact form . . . on 24 the Made-in-China website”, that Plaintiff “received a message noting that [its] message 25 was ‘Sent Successfully! Notification of a supplier’s reply will be sent to klemptner14 26 @gmail.com’”, and that “[t]he message did not bounce back nor did [Plaintiff] receive any 27 communication stating that it was ‘undeliverable.’” Id., ECF No. 12-1 at 5-6. Plaintiff’s 28 attorney states that Defendant Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd. “advertises, 1 markets, supplies, and sells products, such as TV listening devices, on the China.cn e- 2 commerce website (en.china.cn)” and that “[t]he China.cn website includes an online 3 contact form found here: https://detail.en.china.cn/provide/p128064003.html for sending a 4 message . . . .” Id. ¶ 9, ECF No. 12-1 at 6. Plaintiff’s attorney states that he “completed 5 and submitted a message through the online contact form . . . on the China.cn website”, 6 that Plaintiff “received a message stating ‘Successfully! Thank you for your enquiry and 7 you will be contacted soon’”, and that Plaintiff “received an email from suan @yudalt.com 8 providing . . . specific information regarding the product identified” in Plaintiff’s message. 9 Id. 10 Service through online contact forms is reasonably calculated to provide notice to 11 Defendants who operate virtual storefronts regarding the pendency of this action. See e.g., 12 Keck, 2017 WL 10820533, at *3 (“[S]ervice through the Alibaba.com and AliExpress.com 13 online messaging system is reasonably calculated to provide notice to Defendant Stores 14 who operate virtual storefronts regarding the pendency of this action.”); Keck, 2018 WL 15 3632160, at *3 (“[S]ervice through the AliExpress.com online messaging system is a 16 reasonably calculated method that provides notice to those Defendant Stores and allows an 17 opportunity for them to respond.”). Plaintiff presents sufficient facts to demonstrate that 18 service of the summonses, Amended Complaint, and all other filings in this matter to 19 Defendant Joyshiya Development Limited via the online contact forms on 20 https://joyshiyasalesberry.en.ec21.com/company_contact_info.html and https://www. 21 electronics1.com/electronics-suppliers/joyshiya is “reasonably calculated, under all the 22 circumstances, to apprise [Defendant Joyshiya Development Limited] of the pendency of 23 the action and afford [it] an opportunity to present [its] objections.” Rio Properties, 284 24 F.3d at 1016; see e.g., Keck, 2018 WL 3632160, at *3 (finding that service through the 25 AliExpress.com online messaging system is reasonably calculated to provide notice to 26 defendant stores and allow them an opportunity to respond when plaintiff did not receive 27 undeliverable or error messages after sending test messages). Plaintiff presents sufficient 28 facts to demonstrate that service of the summonses, Amended Complaint, and all other 1 filings in this matter to Defendant Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd. via the online 2 contact forms on https://www.made-in-china.com/sendInquiry/prod_NbyxYPELHsWa_ 3 sojmbFMALnWq.html?from=shrom&type=free&page=p_detail and https://detail.en. 4 china.cn/provide/p128064003.html is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, 5 to apprise [Defendant Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.] of the pendency of the 6 action and afford [it] an opportunity to present [its] objections.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d 7 at 1016; see e.g., Keck, 2017 WL 10820533, at *3 (“Because Defendant Stores have 8 responded to online messages, service through the online messaging system is reasonably 9 calculated to give notice to Defendant Stores and afford them an opportunity to present 10 objections.”). 11 II. CONCLUSION 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Renewed Ex Parte Motion Authorizing Alternate 13 Service of Process on Defendants filed by Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. (ECF No. 12) is 14 GRANTED. Plaintiff shall effectuate service by delivering the summonses, Amended 15 Complaint, and all other filings in this matter to Defendant Gao at the email address 16 memorytechcenter@hotmail.com and to Defendants Joyshiya Development Limited; 17 Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen Joyshiya Electronic Co. Ltd.; and 18 Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd at the email address support@simolio.com. Plaintiff 19 shall further effectuate service by delivering the summonses, Amended Complaint, and all 20 other filings in this matter to Defendant Joyshiya Development Limited through the online 21 contact forms found on https://joyshiyasalesberry.en.ec21.com/company_contact_info. 22 html and https://www.electronics1.com/electronics-suppliers/joyshiya and to Defendant 23 Shenzhen Superstar Electronics Co. Ltd. through the online contact forms found on 24 https://www.made-in-china.com/sendInquiry/prod_NbyxYPELHsWa_sojmbFMALnWq. 25 html?from=shrom&type=free&page=p_detail and https://detail.en.china.cn/provide/p1280 26 64003.html. 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion Extending Time for Servic: 2 by Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file proof o 3 || service within 90 days from the date of this Order. 4 || Dated: January 19, 2021 BME: ie Z. A a 5 Hon. William Q. Hayes 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28