1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY 

GROUP CO LTD, 

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00046 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(5)

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Wondershare 

Technology Group Co. Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Wondershare”), respectfully moves to dismiss Plaintiff 

Display Technologies, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for insufficient service of process or, 

alternatively, quash service.

Wondershare is a Chinese company headquartered in Shenzhen, China. See Ex. A, 

Declaration of Meifeng Li (“Li Decl.”), ¶ 3. Wondershare has no registered agent for service of 

process in the United States. Id., ¶ 6. Plaintiff allegedly served Wondershare by delivering a copy of 

the summons and complaint in this action to Corporation Service Company (“CSC”) in Austin, 

Texas. See Dkt. No. 4. CSC is not, and has never been, a registered agent for Wondershare. Li Decl., 

¶ 5. Not only is this alleged service ineffective, Plaintiff’s affidavit of service is false.

What is troubling is that Plaintiff should have known that Wondershare had not been properly 

served. CSC sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter rejecting the attempted service of process because 

Wondershare was not “qualified to do business” in Texas. See Ex. B. Rule 4 requires a copy of the 

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 91
2

summons and complaint to be served on the defendant or an agent authorized by appointment or by 

law to receive service of process on behalf of the defendant. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(1)(b) (emphasis 

added). The summons and complaint were not served on Wondershare in China, and CSC is not an 

agent authorized by appointment to receive process on behalf of Wondershare. Because service is 

insufficient, the Complaint must be dismissed. Considering the serious false representation by 

Plaintiff in the affidavit of service, Wondershare respectfully requests a dismissal with prejudice.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. FED.

R. CIV. P. 12(b)(5). “[O]nce the validity of service of process has been contested, the plaintiff bears 

the burden of establishing its validity.” Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 

1346 (5th Cir. 1992). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5), a court may look to 

affidavits and other documentary evidence presented with the motion. See 5B Charles Alan Wright 

& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1354 (3d ed. 2022). The court has discretion to 

dismiss the case or to quash service. George v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Admin., 788 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1986).

Rule 4 requires a copy of the summons and complaint to be delivered to an officer, a managing 

or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 

process. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(1)(b) (emphasis added). Moreover, service of process on a foreign 

corporation must be performed “in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, 

except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(2). Rule 4(f) permits service in a 

foreign country “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give 

notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents,” among other methods. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f).

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 92
3

II. ARGUMENT

A. Improper Attempt at Service

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 25, 2024, and a summons was issued on January 26, 

2024. See Dkt. Nos. 1 and 3. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s process server delivered a copy of the 

summons and complaint to CSC’s office in Austin, Texas. Dkt. 4. Two days later, on January 31, 

2024, CSC sent a “Rejection of Service of Process” to Plaintiff’s counsel. Ex. B. The Rejection of 

Service of Process stated:

“The service of process received for the party served, as listed above, cannot be 

forwarded to the intended party for the reason listed below:

According to the Secretary of State or other appropriate state agency, the party served 

is not qualified to do business in the jurisdiction served. CSC is only authorized to 

receive service of process on behalf of entities that specifically name it as 

registered/statutory agent within the jurisdiction where service of process occurs. 

Please review the records at the Secretary of State or other appropriate state agency to 

identify the proper name within the jurisdiction for the entity you are trying to serve.”

Id. at 1.

Wondershare is not “qualified to do business” in Texas and has no registered agent for service 

of process in the United States. Li Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. Wondershare has never engaged CSC to act as an 

authorized agent for service of process in the United States. Id., ¶ 5. Thus, Plaintiff has not served 

anyone who has been authorized to accept service on Wondershare’s behalf and service is ineffective. 

B. Misrepresentation in Affidavit of Service

As discussed above, CSC made a clear and explicit rejection of Plaintiff’s attempted service 

on Wondershare. CPC sent this rejection to Plaintiff’s counsel on January 31, 2024, only 2 days after 

the attempted service. Despite this rejection, on February 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed an affidavit of 

service in the case. See Dkt. 4. This affidavit misrepresented to the Court that CPC was the registered 

agent for Wondershare and that Wondershare had been served. Id. 

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 93
4

When an attorney presents a pleading or paper to the court, by whether by signing, filing, 

submitting, or later advocating it, the attorney is certifying that, “to the best of the person’s 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances...the 

factual contentions have evidentiary support.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(3). Plaintiff’s counsel filed the 

affidavit of service with the court, thereby representing to the Court that the affidavit was accurate 

and truthful when it was not. The CSC letter evidences that Plaintiff’s counsel did know, or should 

have known, that Wondershare had not been served. In filing the affidavit of service, Plaintiff’s 

counsel violated Rule 11 and their duty of candor to this Court.

Plaintiff and its counsel’s misrepresentations should not be rewarded by simply quashing the 

service. Wondershare has incurred attorney’s fees in challenging Plaintiff’s false statements. Those

misrepresentations are of such serious nature as to warrant dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice, 

or, if the Court is inclined to quash service, Wondershare should be awarded its fees for this motion. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Wondershare respectfully requests that this Court dismiss 

the Complaint with prejudice. 

Dated: March 21, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Darlene F. Ghavimi

Darlene F. Ghavimi

TX Bar No. 24072114

K&L GATES LLP

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite #650

Austin, Texas 78746

(512) 482-6919

darlene.ghavimi@klgates.com

Attorney for Defendant Wondershare 

Technology Group Co. Ltd.

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 94
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

filed electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. Therefore, this document was served on 

all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service on this the 21st day of March,

2024.

/s/ Darlene F. Ghavimi

Darlene F. Ghavimi

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7 Filed 03/21/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 95