Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00297/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

– 1 – 18cv0297

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTE INTERNATIONAL 

LIMITED BVI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

MOTIONS FOR ORDER 

AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE 

MEANS OF SERVICE OF 

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

[ECF Nos. 5. 9]

v.

PIN SHINE INDUSTRIAL CO., 

LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fourte International Limited BVI and 

Plaintiff Fourte International Sdn. Bhd.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) ex parte motion

and supplemental ex parte motion for an order authorizing Plaintiffsto use alternative 

methods to serve the complaint and summons on Defendants Suzhou Pinshine 

Technology Co., Ltd. (“Pinshine”) and Suzhou Sunshine Technology Co., Ltd. 

(“Sunshine”) (collectively, “Defendants”), both located in China. (ECF Nos. 5, 9.) 

Plaintiffs requests two alternative avenues pursuant to Rule 4(h)(2) and Rule 4(f)(3): 

(1) email service (ECF No. 5), and (2) service on the office of Defendants’ California

Case 3:18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 18cv0297

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

attorney (ECF No. 9). Defendants’ counsel opposed both ex parte motions. (ECF 

Nos. 6, 10.) 

Previously, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application requesting the 

Court to authorize service of the summons and complaint by the Clerk of the Court 

pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) on two other defendants, Pin Shine Industrial Co., Ltd. 

and Bobbin & Tooling Electronics International Company of BVI. (ECF No. 4.) The 

motion was unopposed. Service was not affected upon Pin Shine Industrial Co., Ltd.

because Pin Shine Industrial Co., Ltd. refused to accept the delivery. (ECF No. 11.)

For the reasons herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte requests.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(h)(2), if a corporation is served 

outside any judicial district of the United States, it must be served “in any manner 

prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under 

(f)(2)(C)(i).” Rule 4(f) permits service on an individual, other than a minor, an 

incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed, at a place not within 

any judicial district of the United States by one of three means. Of the methods Rule 

4(f) permits, it “does not denote any hierarchy or preference of one method of service 

over another.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Rule 4(f)(1) expressly addresses service pursuant to the Hague 

Convention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). Like the United States, China is a signatory 

to the Hague Convention. The Hague Convention requires signatory countries to 

establish a Central Authority to receive requests for service of documents from other 

countries and to serve those documents by methods compatible with the internal laws 

of the receiving state. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 

694, 698-99 (1988). Service through a country’s Central Authority is the principal 

means of service under the Hague Convention. 

Case 3:18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 18cv0297

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

Rule 4(f)(3) permits service on an individual located abroad “by other means 

not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(f)(3); cf. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir.

2002) (“A federal court would be prohibited from issuing a Rule 4(f)(3) order in 

contravention of an international agreement, including the Hague Convention, 

referenced in Rule 4(f)(1).”). Service by email or on local U.S. counsel is not 

expressly prohibited by the Hague Convention. See Art. 1-14; see also California Bd. 

Sports, Inc. v. G.H. Dijkmans Beheer B.V., No. CIV.09CV1855LRBB, 2009 WL 

3448456, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2009). The Ninth Circuit has determined that 

“service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a ‘last resort’ nor ‘extraordinary 

relief,’” Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1015 (quoting Forum Fin. Grp., LLC v. President & 

Fellows, 199 F.R.D. 22, 23-23 (D. Me. 2001)), and is available “without first 

attempting service by other means.” Id. (referring to the advisory committee notes to 

Rule 4(f)). However, the moving party must show “that the facts and circumstances 

of the . . . case necessitate[ ] the district court's intervention.” Id. at 1016 (finding 

alternative means of service was necessary because defendant was “elusive” and 

“striving to evade service of process”).

II. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs argue for the first time in their Reply that 

Defendants cannot “specially appear” in federal court, and thus, by filing oppositions 

to Plaintiffs’ motions regarding service, the Court “should find that Defendants . . . 

are deemed served.” (ECF No. 7 at 2-3.) Even if the Court was to consider this 

argument, it fails. See Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that 

making a “general appearance” requires an intention to appear); see also Twin Rivers 

Eng’g, Inc. v. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc., No. CV 16-04502-BRO (MRWx), 2016 

WL 7479373, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument 

regarding special appearances when defendant explicitly stated it intended to 

Case 3:18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 18cv0297

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

challenge service in its first appearance to dispute an entry of default). Though

Defendants’ counsel’s label that he is “specially appearing” has no legal significance, 

it “does emphasize a party’s intent to object to jurisdiction.” McGarr v. Hayford, 52 

F.R.D. 219, 221 (S.D. Cal. 1971). Defendants have not waived any arguments 

relating to insufficient service; instead, each appearance counsel has made is to solely 

dispute the methods of service. See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 

1318 (9th Cir.1998); cf. Neumont Univ., LLC v. Nickles, 304 F.R.D. 594, 597 (D. 

Nev. 2015) (“Such defenses may also be waived when a defendant ‘engage[s] in . . . 

deliberate, strategic behavior’ in defending against the lawsuit.”). Thus, the Court 

declines to find Defendants have waived any arguments regarding service or that 

Defendants have been served. 

As to Plaintiffs’ requests for a court order to serve Defendants by other 

alternative methods under Rule (f)(3), the Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests. The Court 

finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that the circumstances of this action necessitate

the Court’s intervention. Plaintiffs only argue that the requested alternative methods 

of service are the most efficient and effective methods of service, but this argument 

does not meet the requisite standard for obtaining a court order. See Rio Props., 284 

F.3d at 1016; see also California Bd. Sports, Inc., 2009 WL 3448456, at *2 (denying 

request for service on U.S. counsel when plaintiff only argued that service through 

available methods was “too slow”). Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that show 

that the available methods of service have failed to affect service, that this case is of 

particular urgency requiring alternative service methods, or any other facts to support 

their requests. Instead, Plaintiffs only state that they attempted to serve a “waiver of 

service of summons packet” on Pinshine by Federal Express, which Pinshine refused. 

(Schierling Decl., ECF No. 5-1, ¶ 2.) 

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte requests to permit email 

service and service on Defendants’ counsel under Rule 4(f)(3).

Case 3:18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 18cv0297

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte requests to 

authorize alternative service of process on Defendants Pinshine and Sunshine. (ECF 

Nos. 5, 9.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5