Opinion
1:21-cv-5860-GHW
01-04-2024
SMART STUDY CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. ACUTEYE-US, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
GREGORY H. WOODS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In its July 21, 2022 opinion, Dkt. No. 100, and again at the October 25, 2023 hearing, Dkt. No. 127, the Court explained its reasoning for why Plaintiff has failed to serve defendants changgeshangmaoyouxiangongsi and shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi; these defendants' addresses were, and remain, known to Plaintiff, but they were not served at their physical addresses pursuant to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention”). See Dkt. Nos. 100, 127.
On November 20, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f). Dkt. No. 135. In its response, Plaintiff reasserted its position that, in its view, “the Hague Defendants have been properly served via alternative means pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3).” Dkt. No. 137 at 12.
At the January 4, 2024 conference, Plaintiff's counsel affirmatively attested on the record that Plaintiff will not serve these two defendants pursuant to the Hague Convention. Thus, no extensions of time for service of process are warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). Given this representation by Plaintiff's counsel, and for the reasons explained in the Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 100, adopted by reference into the Court's oral opinion delivered at the October 25, 2023 show-cause hearing, see Dkt. No. 127, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants changgeshangmaoyouxiangongsi and shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi are dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve under Rule 4(f).
Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to serve this order on Defendants and to retain proof of service. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.