Will Co Ltd v. Lee, 3:20-cv-05802

Plaintiff Will Co. Ltd. (Japanese LLC) sued for copyright infringement and sought leave to serve foreign defendants Youhaha Marketing & Promotion Ltd. and individual Ka Yeung Lee by alternative means.
Defendants are believed to be located abroad; plaintiff’s investigators could only find Hong Kong virtual-office addresses that provide mail/phone handling but no physical business presence.
Plaintiff identified working email addresses for defendants, sent emails that did not elicit a response but did not bounce back, and used industry search tools without locating physical addresses.
Plaintiff moved ex parte for court-ordered alternative service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) and 4(h)(2) to effect service by email.
The court considered Hague Convention applicability, noted the Convention may not apply when an address is unknown, and acknowledged China’s official position prohibiting email service.
The court concluded plaintiff showed email service was reasonably calculated to provide notice given unknown physical addresses and available valid email addresses, and granted the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court may authorize service by email under Rule 4(f)(3)/4(h)(2)	Email is reasonably calculated to give notice; physical addresses unknown; due diligence performed	Email is not proper where foreign law (e.g., China) prohibits email service or where Hague procedures apply	Granted: court authorized email service under Rule 4(f)(3)
Whether the Hague Convention bars email service	Hague inapplicable because defendant’s physical address is unknown	Hague (or foreign law) may prohibit email service	Court: Convention need not apply when address unknown; foreign prohibitions do not bind Rule 4(f)(3) orders
Whether plaintiff exercised sufficient diligence attempting traditional service	Performed internet searches; located only virtual-office addresses; attempted emails that did not bounce	May argue plaintiff failed to locate a physical address or try other methods	Court found plaintiff’s efforts adequate to justify alternative service

Rio Prop., Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for court-ordered alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3))
Mayoral-Amy v. BHI Corp., 180 F.R.D. 456 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (court may order service that contravenes foreign law when authorized by Rule 4(f)(3))