Case of the Day: Fourte International v. Pin Shine Industrial

The case of the day is Fourte International Ltd. BVI v. Pin Shine Industrial Co. (S.D. Cal. 2019). Fourte brought an action against Suzhou Pinshine Technology Co., Suzhou Sunshine Technology Co., Ltd., and Pin Shine Industrial Co., and Bobbin & Tooling Electronics International Company of BVI. It sought leave to serve Suzhou Pinshine and Suzhou Sunshine, both Chinese firms, via email. Foutre noted that that the central authority would refuse to serve the documents because they referenced Taiwan, which of course the PRC does not recognize. It also sought leave to serve Pin Shine, a Taiwanese company, by email.

The court granted the motion as to defendants in both countries. The decision was permissible with regard to the Taiwanese defendant, because Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Service Convention. FRCP 4(f)(3) does not permit a court to authorize a method of service that violates a treaty, but it does permit a court to authorize a method of service that violates the local law of the place where service is to be made. But the decision was erroneous with regard to the Chinese defendants, for the reasons I have given many times before.

Martin Luther King

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. Robert Loskot

    Ted: As an FYI, please be advised that your email attachment page, with “Read the Post” appearing below what usually is the first paragraph of your blog post, still displays your “Murphy & King” affiliation at the very bottom.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

folkman llc banner
Learn more about Ted Folkman and our practice areas. Read Ted’s award-winning blog on international judicial assistance, Letters Blogatory.
Subscribe to our newsletter

Please subscribe to our “Clients and Colleagues” newsletter, which we typically send approximately quarterly.