Opinion
2:21-cv-01703-TL
07-31-2023
FANG CONG, Plaintiff, v. XUE ZHAO, Defendant.
ORDER
TANA LIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On July 20, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report indicating any developments regarding service through China's Central Authority. Dkt. No. 17. Since then, Plaintiff has filed two status reports. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. In the second report on July 29, Plaintiff states that the Central Authority has closed her case and the documents were not served because the address provided does not exist. Dkt. No. 19 at 1; see Dkt. No. 19-1 (certificate from Central Authority). Plaintiff also expresses a wish for alternative service options. Dkt. No. 19 at 1. This Court previously stated that Plaintiff “may file a new motion seeking alternative service six months after making a proper request to the Central Authority.” Dkt. No. 15 at 3. “The motion for alternative service should include enough detail for the Court to determine that Plaintiff followed the procedures required by the Central Authority, and-if the supporting evidence is not in English-should include certified translations of relevant documents to English.” Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a motion for alternative service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), if so desired, within forty-five (45) days of this Order. The motion SHALL include: (1) an explanation of the efforts Plaintiff has made to locate Defendant (including whether Plaintiff has been in contact with Defendant); (2) Plaintiff's proposal for alternative service; and (3) the reason(s) the proposed method of service is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002).