Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06586/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06586-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROYAL SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

HIMAX FURNITURE INDUSTRY )

CORPORATION, Ltd., )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:03-CV-6586-OWW-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (DOC. 16)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

ENTER THE DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT

HIMAX FURNITURE CORPORATION, LTD.

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MAY 20,

2005, ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Background

Plaintiff Royal Speciality Underwriting, an insurer and a

Georgia corporation with a principal place of business in North

Carolina, filed in November 2003 this action for indemnity

against Defendant Himax Furniture, a citizen of China and the

manufacturer of defective furniture. The furniture caused an

injury that resulted in a claim of $125,000 by Plaintiff’s

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 This briefing was on the incomplete nature of the actual proof of service filed in this

action, which did not indicate the method of service, the identity and description of the person

served, or the relationship of the person served to the addressee. Further, the certificate stated,

“the signature cannot be recognized.” Plaintiff had not briefed the issues of whether the clearly

incomplete certificate was completed in the form of the model annexed to the present

Convention, as is required by Article 6 of the Hague Convention; whether the certificate stated

the method, place, and date of service, and the person to whom the document was delivered, as is

required by Article 6; whether the incomplete certificate could constitute prima facie evidence of

service by the Central Authority in compliance with the Convention and in compliance with the

law of the foreign state in which service was effected; whether Plaintiff had filed a sufficient

proof of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) and the Convention; and whether such a proof

2

insured, a seller or distributor of the defective furniture. The

claim was settled by Plaintiff. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) because the claim is between citizens of a

state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state and exceeds

$75,000.00.

After Plaintiff filed a proof of service in September 2004

and requested the entry of default against Defendant, the Clerk

wrote to Plaintiff and denied the request to enter a clerk’s

default because it was not in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for entry of default on

December 6, 2004, alleging service on Defendant on May 5, 2004,

and a failure on Defendant’s part to plead or otherwise defend.

Plaintiff argued that the service was proper pursuant to the

Hague Convention. Plaintiff submitted a proof of service as well

as counsel’s declaration that the summons and complaint were

timely and properly served, and that Defendant did not file an

answer, motion, or other responsive pleading. The docket reflects

that no responsive pleading or motion has been filed.

On December 23, 2004, the Court directed Plaintiff to file

supplemental briefing.1 The hearing on the motion and due dates

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of service established service that met the requirements of Article 15 that must be established

before a default judgment, which Plaintiff would ultimately seek, might be entered. If Plaintiff

did not intend to rely on the Convention, then Plaintiff had not briefed the sufficiency under any

other pertinent standards of the actual proof of service submitted to this Court. Filing an amended

proof of service was suggested.

3

were continued. Instead of briefing, on April 28, 2005, Plaintiff

filed a translation of the certificate of delivery (in effect,

the proof of service) and a letter stating that the submitted

documents obviated the need for briefing.

Sufficiency of Service

The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters is

appended to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See 28 U.S.C.A., Fed. R. Civ. P.

4, Treaties and Conventions, Convention on the Service Abroad of

Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial

Matters (West’s Supp. 2004). The Convention provides that it

shall apply in all cases in civil or commercial matters where

there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial

document for service abroad where the address of the person to be

served is known. Conv., Art. 1. Each contracting state designates

a Central Authority that will receive requests for service from

other contracting states and will proceed in conformity with the

provisions of articles 3 through 6. Conv., Art. 2. The authority

competent under the law of the state in which the documents

originate shall forward to the Central Authority a request

conforming to a model annexed to the present Convention with a

copy of the document to be served annexed to the request, both in

duplicate. Conv., Art. 3. A nonconforming request prompts the

Central Authority to inform the applicant and state specific

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

objections.

Here, the declaration of Rick Hamilton, the Director of

Operations at Process Forwarding International (PFI), states that 

PFI is the official contractor to the United States Department of

Justice for international process service; he requested the

service abroad on Defendant Himax in this case. A copy of the

request for service abroad shows that the request conformed to

the model annexed to the Convention and that service was

requested in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention.

Article 5 of the Convention provides that the Central

Authority shall itself serve the document or arrange to have it

served by an appropriate agency, either a) by a method prescribed

by its internal law for the service of documents or b) by a

particular method requested by the applicant, unless that method

is incompatible with the law of the state in which service shall

occur. Subject to the law of that state, the document may always

be served by delivery to an addressee who accepts it voluntarily.

Conv., Art. 5. A summary of the document shall be served with the

document.

Article 6 of the Convention provides that the Central

Authority shall complete a certificate in the form of a model

annexed to the present Convention which shall state that the

document has been served; shall include the method, the place and

date of service, and the person to whom the document was

delivered; and shall be forwarded directly to the applicant. 

Hamilton declares that he was provided with a certified

translation of the certificate of delivery. The certified

translation indicates that the documents were delivered on May 5,

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

2004, at 10:00 a.m. at Zhejian Himax Furniture Industry Co. Ltd;

the person served was Tianshui Zhu, the Company Associate General

Manager, whose telephone number was given. The certificate itself

bears a signature and seal; the translation indicates the

signer’s identity and relationship with the addressee. Hamilton 

authenticates the translation and states that the certificate of

delivery confirms that process was made on Defendant on May 5,

2004, at 10:00 a.m., upon Zhu Tianshui, the Defendant’s associate

general manager. He further states that service was made pursuant

to Article 5(a) of the Hague Convention, which provides that each

signatory country can designate a method of service of judicial

documents, and that the method of service in this case is in

compliance with the People’s Republic of China Ministry of

Justice for service of civil litigation documents to persons or

entities within its territory.

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) provides that unless otherwise

provided by federal law, service upon a foreign corporation shall

be effected 1) in a judicial district of the United States (not

the case here), or 2) “in a place not within any judicial

district of the United States in any manner prescribed for

individuals by subdivision (f) except personal delivery as

provided in paragraph 2(C)(i) thereof.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) provides:

(f) Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service

upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been

obtained and filed, other than an infant or an

incompetent person, may be effected in a place not

within any judicial district of the United States:

(1) by any internationally agreed means reasonably

calculated to give notice, such as those means

authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service

Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; or

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

(2) if there is no internationally agreed means of

service or the applicable international agreement

allows other means of service, provided that service is

reasonably calculated to give notice:

(A) in the manner prescribed by the law of

the foreign country for service in that country in an

action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction; or

(B) as directed by the foreign authority in

response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or

(C) unless prohibited by the law of the

foreign country, by

(i) delivery to the individual

personally of a copy of the summons and the complaint;

or

(ii) any form of mail requiring a signed

receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of

the court to the party to be served; or

(3) by other means not prohibited by international

agreement as may be directed by the court. (Emphasis

added.)

Here, neither subdivision (f)(2) nor (f)(3) applies because

China is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and the Court has

not ordered service by another means.

As to proof of service, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) provides:

If service is not waived, the person effecting service shall

make proof thereof to the court. If service is made by a person

other than a United States marshal or deputy United States

marshal, the person shall make affidavit thereof. Proof of

service in a place not within any judicial district of the United

States shall, if effected under paragraph (1) of subdivision (f),

be made pursuant to the applicable treaty or convention, and

shall, if effected under paragraph (2) or (3) thereof, include a

receipt signed by the addressee or other evidence of delivery to

the addressee satisfactory to the court. Failure to make proof of

service does not affect the validity of the service. The court

may allow proof of service to be amended. (Emphasis added.)

China is a signatory to the Convention on the Service Abroad

of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial

Matters (Hague Convention). 28 U.S.C.A, Rule 4, Treaties and

Conventions n. 3a at p. 133-35 (West’s, Supp. 2004). The Bureau

of International Judicial Assistance of the Ministry of Justice

of the People’s Republic of China is designated as China’s

Central Authority. Id. at 134. This is the authority to which

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Hamilton directed the request for service.

Hamilton declares and certifies that the service of process

made on Defendant in this case was pursuant to Article 5(a) of

the Hague Convention because China, the signatory country, is

free to designate a method of service, and the method of service

in the instant case was in compliance with the People’s Republic

of China Ministry of Justice for service of civil litigation

documents to persons or entities within its territory. Hamilton,

as the director of operations of the official contractor to the

United States Department of Justice for international process

service, may reasonably be expected to be familiar with the

methods of service designated by China.

It has been held that the return of a completed certificate

of service is prima facie evidence that the Central Authority

served the document or documents in compliance with the

Convention and in compliance with the law of the foreign state in

which service was effected. Northrup King v. Compania Productoras

Semillas Algodoneras Selectas, 51 F.3d 1383, 1389-90 (8th Cir.

1995). It has been held that by not objecting to the documents

and by certifying service, the Central Authority indicates that

the documents complied with the Convention and that it had served

them in compliance with the Convention, i.e., that it had made

service as the law of China required. Id.

It thus appears that Plaintiff has proved that the service

of process was in conformity with the Convention and was adequate

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) and (l). 

Accordingly, it should be concluded that Plaintiff has

demonstrated that Defendant has been served with the summons and

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

complaint. In view of the declaration of counsel that Defendant

has not filed a response, and the Court’s docket, which indicates

the same thing, it appears that Plaintiff is entitled to entry of

default. The clerk shall enter a party’s default when a party

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has

failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the pertinent

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Unless a

different time is prescribed by statute of the United States, a

defendant shall serve an answer within twenty days after being

served with the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).

Before a default will be entered, the clerk must be satisfied

from the request and accompanying documentation that 1) the

defendant has been served with the summons or has agreed to waive

service, 2) the time allowed by law for responding has expired,

and 3) the defendant has failed to file a pleading or motion

permitted by law; however, no notice to the defendant is

required. Hawaii Carpenters’ Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508,

512 (9th Cir. 1986).

Remedy

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) provides with respect to entry of

default:

When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative

relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend

as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear

by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the

party’s default. 

Although the rule refers to the clerk’s entry of default, it is

established that the rule is not in derogation of the Court’s

power to order that default be entered. Breuer Elecric

Manufacturing Co. v. Toronado Systems of America, Inc., 687 F.2d

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982); Bonita Packing Co. v. O’Sullivan, 165

F.R.D. 610, 614 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing that even when a

defendant is technically in default for failing to answer or

otherwise appear, it is nevertheless within a court’s discretion

whether to enter a default); United States v. Jackson, 25 F.Supp.

79 (D.C. Ore. 1938) (ordering the entry of default but indicating

that the clerk should do so in the future without a court order).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted, and the

Clerk will be directed to enter the default of Defendant Himax

Furniture Industry Corporation, Ltd.

Further, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the Court has

determined that hearing of Plaintiff’s motion for entry of

default is unnecessary, and the motion may be submitted on the

papers and briefs filed with the Court.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

1) The hearing set for May 20, 2005, on Plaintiff’s motion

for entry of default IS VACATED; and

2) Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default against Defendant

Himax Furniture Industry Corporation, Ltd., IS GRANTED; and

3) The Clerk of the Court IS DIRECTED to enter the default

of the Defendant Himax Furniture Industry Corporation, Ltd.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06586-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 9 of 9