Mighty Dreams LLC v. Shenzhen Beianen Automotive Supplies Co Ltd
2:24-cv-00793
| W.D. Wash. | Feb 7, 2025Background
- Mighty Dreams LLC sued Shenzhen Beianen Automotive Supplies Co., Ltd. and related defendants for false advertising under the Lanham Act, Washington Consumer Protection Act, and common law unfair competition.
- Allegations include Defendants manipulating Amazon.com seller accounts to distort sales prices and win the Amazon buy box, allegedly deceiving customers.
- Defendants are foreign entities without available physical addresses, using only email addresses associated with their Amazon accounts.
- Plaintiff previously moved twice for alternative service via email; both motions were denied for failing to prove the emails were valid and active.
- On the third attempt, Plaintiff sent tracked emails to the addresses, confirmed they could receive messages, and received no bounce-backs or errors.
- The Court analyzed whether service by email was permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), international agreements, and due process considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether email service is prohibited | Email service not prohibited by international agreements, Hague Convention not triggered if no address | No specific argument cited | Not prohibited, especially since no physical address found |
| Whether email service comports with due process | Email addresses are active, used for business, received test messages—thus, reasonably calculated notice | Not specified | Email service satisfies due process |
| Whether circumstances necessitate alternative service | No physical address, Defendants avoiding contact, necessity for court’s help | Not specified | Court’s intervention is justified |
| Standard for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) | All requisite thresholds met: not prohibited, satisfies due process, necessity established | Not specified | Standard met, third motion for alternative service granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (service under Rule 4(f)(3) is not a last resort or extraordinary, can be used at the court's discretion)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform parties of a pending action)