Mighty Dreams LLC v. Shenzhen Beianen Automotive Supplies Co Ltd
2:24-cv-00793
W.D. Wash.Dec 4, 2024Background
- Mighty Dreams LLC sued Shenzhen Beianen Automotive Supplies Co. Ltd and others for alleged false advertising and unfair competition related to Amazon.com seller accounts.
- Plaintiff claims defendants manipulated sales prices and coordinated accounts to win the Amazon “buy box,” thereby deceiving consumers.
- Plaintiff previously moved to serve defendants by email per Rule 4(f)(3), but the court denied the motion for lack of evidence that the emails were valid or associated with defendants.
- Plaintiff was later allowed to subpoena Amazon for email addresses linked to defendants’ seller accounts, obtaining two addresses.
- Plaintiff then sought permission to serve defendants via these new email addresses but did not demonstrate they were currently functional or that service would provide due process.
- The court denied the second motion for alternative service without prejudice, citing lack of proof that the email addresses are valid and in use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alternative email service is proper | The obtained emails are associated with defendants’ accounts and are valid for service | Not detailed in opinion | Alternative service denied due to lack of verification |
| Whether Rule 4(f)(3) requirements are met | Plaintiff met the rule by connecting emails to defendants | Not detailed in opinion | Plaintiff did not verify emails are functional |
| Due process of email service | Asserted emails are valid and in use | Not detailed in opinion | No verification, thus due process not satisfied |
| Burden to show activity of email addresses | New emails from Amazon should suffice for service | Not detailed in opinion | Plaintiff must show emails are currently functional |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (sets standards for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) including requirements for due process and judicial discretion)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Buy More, Inc., [citation="703 F. App'x 476"] (9th Cir. 2017) (notes court's discretion in balancing limitations and benefits of email service)