墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
微信号: Mooting2018
墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
| 编号 | 日期 | 案件进程 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-06-30 | COMPLAINT filed by Shenzhen Yilian E-commerce Co., Ltd.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25316522. |
| 4 | 2026-06-30 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Yilian E-commerce Co., Ltd. to seal document Motion for Leave to File under Seal |
| 6 | 2026-07-07 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Motion to seal document [4] is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 7 | 2026-07-15 | Seal Document |
| 10 | 2026-07-15 | Discovery |
| 11 | 2026-07-16 | Order on Motion to Seal Document |
| 14 | 2026-08-03 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Yilian E-commerce Co., Ltd. for Electronic Service Pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) And Issuance of A Single Original Summon Applicable to All Defendants Identified on Schedule B |
| 15 | 2026-08-12 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion for electronic service [14], the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to ascertain and verify Defendants' mailing addresses. Although Plaintiff dispatched test mailings to addresses listed on Defendants' seller profiles and to other addresses uncovered in its searches, Plaintiff never took the straightforward step of asking Defendants directly for their addresses. Plaintiff acknowledges that Amazon produced the email addresses associated with those seller accounts. It would appear reasonable, therefore, to contact those email addresses to inquire whether a physical address can be obtained. The motion [14] is therefore denied without prejudice to refile. Mailed notice. |
| 16 | 2026-08-27 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Yilian E-commerce Co., Ltd. for Electronic Service Pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) Renewed Motion for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 17 | 2026-09-01 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service as to Defendants identified on Amended Schedule B [16] is granted. The Seventh Circuit has held that the Hague Convention forecloses service by email on defendants located in China. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799802 (7th Cir. 2026). And while the Hague Convention is inapplicable if a defendant's address is unknown, a plaintiff must demonstrate "reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify [the] defendant's mailing address" before a court can deem an address as unknown. Id. at 799. Here, Plaintiff investigated and attempted to verify the physical addresses of each Defendant identified on Schedule B of their renewed motion [16-3]. Plaintiff's efforts include: (1) locating address information for each Defendant through their corresponding Amazon seller-profile page; (2) searching Chinese corporate databases using available business names; (3) conducting Baidu searches using available names, including, where available, Defendants' Chinese-language names; (4) sending test mailings to every potentially relevant physical address identified through their investigation; and now, recently (5) directly seeking address information from Defendants using the email addresses produced by Amazon as associated with Defendants' seller accounts. The Court finds Plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to ascertain and verify the mailing addresses of all Defendants listed on Schedule B. [16-3]. The Court therefore authorizes email service on the 38 Defendants listed on Schedule B under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The Clerk is directed to issue a single original summons in the name of "ZHONGANGTINGSHAGMAO and all other Defendants identified in the Complaint," which shall apply to the 38 Defendants identified in Amended Schedule B [16-3]. Plaintiff is to file a status report by 10/1/26. Mailed notice. |