U-tec Group Inc. v. Pine Locks

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 8, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-06673
StatusUnknown

This text of U-tec Group Inc. v. Pine Locks (U-tec Group Inc. v. Pine Locks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
U-tec Group Inc. v. Pine Locks, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 U-TEC GROUP INC., Case No. 23-cv-06673-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SERVICE v. 9

10 PINE LOCKS, Defendant. 11

12 13 In this patent dispute, plaintiff U-Tec Group Inc. has asked the Court to appoint a special 14 process server to effectuate service on foreign defendant Pine Locks, which is said to be an Isle of 15 Man corporation that may be served pursuant to the Hague Convention. Dkt. No. 12. U-Tec’s ex 16 parte application for a temporary restraining order against Pine Locks is pending. Dkt. No. 5. 17 Counsel for U-Tec represents that he communicated with an attorney “who has made clear that he 18 represents Pine Locks and is authorized to negotiate settlement on behalf of Pine Locks,” but 19 declines to accept service of the complaint. Dkt. No. 5-5 ¶¶ 3, 5. 20 Rather than put the case through the complications of overseas service, and attendant 21 delays, service is ordered on Pine Locks’ attorney pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 4(f)(3). “In situations like this, service on a foreign corporation’s counsel in the United States is 23 an effective and reasonable method, and is not prohibited by the Hague Convention.” Xilinx, Inc. 24 v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1264 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Service on Pine 25 Locks’ attorney is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties 26 of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Reflex 27 Media, Inc. v. SuccessfulMatch.com, No. 20-cv-06393-JD, 2021 WL 275545, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 1 Consequently, service of the summons and complaint, and the ex parte motion, is ordered 2 || on attorney Zac Garthe. U-Tec should arrange for personal service, with copies also sent by 3 registered mail through the U.S. Postal Service, on attorney Garthe at Copernicus Law, 445 4 || Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203. Any objections to service may be filed within 10 days of the 5 || filing of a proof of service on the docket. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 8, 2024 8 9 JAMES/APONATO 10 United #Jtates District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
246 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (N.D. California, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
U-tec Group Inc. v. Pine Locks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/u-tec-group-inc-v-pine-locks-cand-2024.