UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o

Cynthia Jacobson,

Plaintiir,

V.

GREE USA,INC.,c/«i,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00881

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Vascura

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants', Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai

and Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliance Sales, Ltd., Motion to Dismiss tinder Rule 12(b)(5) for

insufficient service of process (Doc. 14). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. 15) to

which Defendants replied (Doc. 17). PlaintifT also filed a Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 18)

which was grantedin part allowingPlaintiffto file a notice ofsupplemental authority relevant to

the case at hand. For the followingreasons, the Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a products liability and negligence case involving an allegedly defective

dehumidifier which was produced and distributed by Defendants. Plaintiff is Nationwide

Property and Casualty Insurance Company acting as subrogee of Cynthia Jacobson whose

property was damaged by a fire allegedly caused by the failure of a Gree dehumidifier. (Doc. 1,

Compl. at 3-4). There are four named Defendants—two are California corporations, Gree

USA, Inc. and MJC America, Ltd., and two are Chinese corporations, Gree Electric Appliances,
Inc. ofZhuhai ("Gree China") and Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales, Ltd. ("Gree Hong

Kong") {Id. at ^ 5). Gree USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gree Hong Kong and Gree

Hong Kong is a wholly owned subsidiary ofGree China. (Doc. 15, Mem. in 0pp. at 3). Plaintiff

instituted this action by filing the Complaint on August 15, 2018. {See Doc. 1, Compl.). "On

August 24,2018, a private process server hand delivered a copy ofthe Summons, Complaint and

Statement ofDisclosure for Gree China and Green Hong Kong by leaving copies with the person

in charge at the business address of Gree USA." (Doc. 15, Mem. in 0pp. at 2). Plaintiff also

mailed a copy of the Siunmons and Complaint to the Chino Hills, California address of Ming

Chu Dong. (Doc. 13, Mot. to Dismiss at 4).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(5)states that insufficientservice of process can be

grounds for dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Rule 4(h)(1) states that there are two acceptable

methods for serving a "domestic or foreign corporation ... in a judicial district of the United

States." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(l)(A)-(B). Those methods are "in the manner prescribed by Rule

4(e)(1) for serving an individual" or "by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an

officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to

receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so

requires—^by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint on the basis that service was

insufficient because it did not comply with the Hague Convention and, in the alternative, even if

the Hague Convention does not apply, that service was not proper under California law. Plaintiff

argues that compliance with the Hague Convention is not required and that service of process
was sufficient under California law.

A. Hague Conventioii

Defendants argue that because they are foreign corporations they must be served in

accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad ofJudicial and Extrajudicial

Documents. (Doc. 14, Mot. to Dismiss at 6). However, compliance with the Hague Convention

is not required "[w]here service on a domestic agent is valid and complete under both state law

and the Due Process Clause." VolkswagenwerkAktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694,707

(1988). In other words, where "service, under state law, [does] not necessarily require

transmittal ofthe relevantdocuments [abroad], the HagueServiceConvention simply [is] not

implicated." Yamaha MotorCo., Ltd. v. SuperiorCourt,94 Cal.Rptr. 3d 494,498 (Cal.Ct.

App. 2009). As discussed below, California state law does not require the relevant documents to

be transmitted abroad. Therefore, the HagueServiceConvention is not implicated and service

can be proper, so long as it is complies with all other relevant state laws.

B. California Law

Defendants argue that service was not proper under California law because "the

[C]omplaint was served on their California subsidiary, namely Gree USA, by leavingcopies of

the documents with Jeanie Conley" and subsequently mailing copies "to the same address that

Plaintifflisted for Gree USA in the [C]omplaint." (Doc. 17,Reply in Supp. at 6-7). However,

California law permits service on a corporation "by delivering a copy of the summons and the

complaint" to various corporate executives includinga "general manager." Cal. Civ. Proc.

§ 416.10. California law defines "general manager" broadly to allow service on a foreign

corporation through its domestic subsidiary. Yamaha, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 498. Therefore,

service on Gree USA was sufficient under California law for Gree China and Gree Hong Kong
as well.

Defendants further argue that "even ifthis Court agrees with PlaintifPs position that Gree

USA is a 'general manager' for Gree China and Gree Hong Kong based on their

subsidiary/parent company relationship, the issue still remains whether Gree USA was properly

served as such" as "Ms, Conley is not Gree USA's designated .. . agent for service of process."

(Doc. 17, Rep. at 7). However, Plaintiffhas complied with the alternative method contemplated

by § 415.20 which states that:

"in lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the

person to be served as specified in Section . . . 416.10 . . ., a summons may be

served by leaving a copy ofthe sununons and complaint during usual office hours

in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing

address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person

who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the

summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be

served at the place where a copy ofthe summons and complaint were left." Cal.

Civ. Proc. § 415.20.

Therefore, service on Ms. Conley at Gree USA's business address followed by the

subsequent mailing of a copy of the Complaint to Ms. Dong complied with California law for

service of process. Furthermore, another court has ruled on the same issue and found that service

was proper. See Nationwide v. Gree, No. 3:18-12607, Doc. 19 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2018).

Service was therefore sufficient and Defendants are not entitled to dismissal.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

The Clerk shall REMOVE Document 4 from the Court's pendingmotions list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Georee C. Smith

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT