Case of the Day: FKA Distributing v. Yisi Technology

The case of the day is FKA Distributing Co. v. Yisi Technology Co. (E.D. Mich. 2017). FKA sued Yisi, a Chinese firm. FKA first simply emailed the summons to Yisi, but after Yisi failed to respond, it made a request for service under the Hague Service Convention. Although only a few months had passed, FKA sought leave to serve by email, given that the “vendor who served the Summons for them” told them that the service could take more than a year. One wonders why the vendor didn’t explain this before making the request for service under the Convention!

In any case, the judge allowed the motion, joining the many district courts that have held that the Convention permits service of process by email, even in countries that have objected to service by postal channels. It doesn’t appear that the defendant’s address was unknown. I won’t repeat what I’ve written many times before.

3 thoughts on “Case of the Day: FKA Distributing v. Yisi Technology”

  1. Pingback: Service of Process and the Unauthorized Practice of Law | Letters Blogatory | Letters Blogatory

  2. I’ve got to think that any “vendor” who is per se credible would have mentioned to the litigators that China takes forever (if they even do execute requests anymore, which is questionable). That said, I don’t see any reference to the vendor… where is it?

    What I question is why nobody involved in this case even mentioned Schlunk. It’s crystal clear from the 4(f)(3) motion that it was completely ignored– and it seems the judge declined to look behind that disregard. The got Mullane, they got Rio Properties, and they left out Schlunk entirely. Why? Either because it’s adverse or because they don’t know about it– which raises even more questions than the adversity issue..

    This would be akin to ignoring Miranda in a criminal confession case.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *