Pangang Group Company, Ltd. v. Usdc-Caoak, 901 F.3d 1046

Background

In 2012 the government indicted four Pangang Group companies (Chinese state-owned entities) for economic espionage; initial attempts to serve summonses in the U.S. were ruled defective by the district court.
DOJ pursued service by multiple means (mail, delivery to U.S. affiliates, requests to Chinese authorities) but Chinese assistance was refused.
The Advisory Committee amended Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4 in 2016 to add Rule 4(c)(3)(D), permitting service on organizations outside the U.S. by delivery in conformity with foreign law or “by any other means that gives notice.”
After the amendment took effect, the government delivered reissued summonses to Quinn Emanuel (attorneys who had earlier made special appearances for Pangang) and emailed/certified-mail copies; Quinn Emanuel informed Pangang that they had received the summonses but said they were not authorized to accept service.
Pangang failed to appear and moved to quash service; the district court found Pangang had actual notice (given Quinn Emanuel’s statements and prior contact) and denied the motion. Pangang sought mandamus relief; Ninth Circuit denied the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether delivery of summonses to attorneys (who informed client) satisfied Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(c)(3)(D) for organizations outside U.S.	Pangang: The rule’s catchall must be limited by the enumerated examples; delivery to counsel does not equal service and would eliminate meaningful special appearances.	Government: The rule’s plain text allows any method that gives notice; actual notice to the organization (even via counsel) satisfies Rule 4.	Court: Plain text and rule history show the phrase “any other means that gives notice” is broad; delivery that provided actual notice satisfied Rule 4.
Whether canons (superfluity, ejusdem generis) restrict the catchall in Rule 4(c)(3)(D)(ii)	Pangang: Enumerated list implies limitation; catchall would render listed items superfluous and should be read to similar formal processes.	Government: Committee note and history show list is non-exhaustive and presumption favors enumerated means but does not limit the catchall.	Court: Canons do not override clear text; Advisory Committee expressly rejected narrowing and intended flexibility.
Whether the amendment to Rule 4 abrogates or improperly limits the right to make a special appearance to contest service	Pangang: Historical practice permits special appearances to challenge service; amendment would nullify that protection.	Government: Amendment only prevents feigned lack of notice; special appearances remain available for other grounds.	Court: No bar to special appearances on other grounds; the rule properly treats actual notice as effective service.
Whether applying the 2016 amendment in this pending case was unjustly retroactive	Pangang: If amendment applied, prior special appearances could not have been withdrawn and Pangang was prejudiced.	Government: Summons delivery and the contested events occurred after the amendment’s effective date; district court’s exercise of discretion was proper.	Court: Applying the amended rule here was just and practicable; Pangang showed no prejudicial reliance or unfairness.

Key Cases Cited

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (Sup. Ct.) (mandamus is drastic extraordinary remedy)
In re United States, 884 F.3d 830 (9th Cir.) (mandamus standards)
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (Sup. Ct.) (federal rules promulgated under Rules Enabling Act are binding)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (Sup. Ct.) (Advisory Committee notes informative on rule meaning)
SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretive weight of the word “any”)
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (ordinary meaning of words)
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (Sup. Ct.) (use of examples and ejusdem generis principles)
United States v. Woods, 399 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.) (retroactivity of amended rules consideration)