Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laboratory v. Nanjing University

United States District Court, D. Maine

January 29, 2018

JACKSON LABORATORY, Plaintiff
v.
NANJING UNIVERSITY, NANJING BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF NANJING UNIVERSITY, and NANJING UNIVERSITY MODEL ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER, Defendants

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR COURT-ORDERED SERVICE

          John H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge

         In this petition to compel arbitration to resolve a contract dispute, the plaintiff moves for leave to serve process via email and personal service pursuant to Rules 4(f)(3) and 4(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on three related defendants domiciled in China. See Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Ordered Service of Complaint and Petition to Compel Arbitration (“Motion”) (ECF No. 4) at 1-2, 4-5. I grant the motion for the reasons that follow.

         I. Applicable Legal Standard

         Rule 4(f) provides as follows:

(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual - other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed - may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) 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;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;
(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:
(i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or
(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).

         Rule 4(h), which deals specifically with service of process on corporations, partnerships, or associations, incorporates the language of Rule 4(f) by stating that service is permissible “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, 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).

         “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3), a method of service of process must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). “To meet this requirement, the method of service crafted by the district court must be ‘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.'” Id. at 1017-18 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). See also, e.g., D.Light Design, Inc. v. Boxin Solar Co., No. C-13-5988 EMC, 2015 WL 526835, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2015) (“To establish that service of process by email is appropriate in a given case, a plaintiff must show that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.