Email Service for Emergency Measures vs. Default Judgments
As we have repeatedly pointed out on TLB, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) does not permit service by email on defendants in China whose mailing addresses are known because such service is not permitted by the Hague Service Convention. I have previously reported on Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s thoughtful analysis of this question…
Continue ReadingMaking a Mess of Service of Process
Last Friday, Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler (District of Utah) granted a motion for alternative service of process, allowing the plaintiff in Univera Brands, LLC v. Hawk Sports Industries, Germany, GmbH to serve the defendants through their U.S. lawyers and by email to an address in Germany. The decision is remarkable for the number of things…
Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Limits Email Service on Foreign Defendants
Last Friday, the Seventh Circuit held in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. that defendants located in China cannot be served by email when the Hague Service Convention applies. (Disclaimer: Bill Dodge and I filed an amicus in Kangol with the help of friend-of-the-blog Ted Folkman urging this result.) The…
Continue ReadingSDNY Approves Email Service for Temporary Measures and Contempt
The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Smart Study Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi made clear that defendants located in Hague Service Convention member states that have objected to service by postal channels typically cannot be served by email. Last month, Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York addressed an important limit to Smart Study’s…
Continue ReadingSecond Circuit Holds Hague Service Convention Prohibits Email Service on Chinese Defendants
On December 18, 2025, just as TLB was going on holiday break, the Second Circuit issued its decision in Smart Study Co. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, holding that the Hague Service Convention prohibits email service on Chinese defendants. As friend-of-TLB Ted Folkman wrote shortly thereafter, “This is the one we’ve been waiting for.” The question of email…
Continue ReadingServing Foreign Defendants’ U.S. Counsel to Avoid the Hague Service Convention
Plaintiffs are sometimes frustrated trying to serve process on foreign defendants through the Hague Service Convention. Sometimes, they ask federal district courts to authorize service by email as an alternative means. The problem with this, as Maggie Gardner and I have explained in detail, is that that the means of service provided in the Convention…
Continue ReadingThe $24 Billion Judgment Against China in Missouri’s COVID Suit
On March 7, 2025, Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. (Eastern District of Missouri) entered a default judgment for more than $24 billion against the People’s Republic of China and eight other Chinese defendants for hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE) during the early days of the COVID pandemic in violation of federal and state antitrust laws….
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Holds that Serving Chinese Defendants by Email is Prohibited
My posts on TLB often criticize judicial opinions. Today, for a change, I’d like to celebrate a district court decision addressing the thorny question of email service under the Hague Service Convention that gets the answer exactly right. In Flying Heliball, LLC v. Zero Zero Robotics, Inc., Judge Fred W. Slaughter (Central District of California)…
Continue ReadingA Roadmap to Service by Email
Federal courts have struggled with the question of when they can authorize service by email on a defendant located in a country that belongs to the Hague Service Convention—as we have explained in many prior posts. Though the interaction between the Convention and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) can be tricky, there are clear…
Continue ReadingThird Circuit Addresses Email Service under the Hague Service Convention
A new decision by the Third Circuit, SEC v. Lahr, correctly analyzes the tricky question of email service under the Hague Service Convention. The court’s clear explanation will be of great help to district courts across the country, which remain divided on this question. Unfortunately, the Third Circuit chose not to publish its decision, so…
Continue Reading