The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST Case No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD
14
LITIGATION Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD
15
16 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ORDER GRANTING DIRECT AND
INDIRECT PURCHASER
17
All Actions PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER
18 AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE
SERVICE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Before the Court is Direct and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
2 Motion for Order Authorizing Alternative Service. Dkt. No. 99 (“Motion”). Having considered
3 all the papers and pleadings on file, the Court had determined that the matter is suitable for
4 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
5 Defendants Celestron Acquisition, LLC, SW Technology Corp, Corey Lee, David
6 Anderson, and Joseph Lupica oppose the Motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs have made no
7 effort to effectuate service through the Hague Convention or letters rogatory and have therefore
8 failed to show that alternative service is necessary. See Dkt. No. 104. The Court finds that it is
9 not necessary for Plaintiffs’ to have attempted service through the Hague Convention or letters
10 rogatory before seeking an order authorizing alternative service from the Court. See Rio Props.
11 v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e disapprove of the statements
12 in Graval which would require attempted service by all feasible alternatives before service under
13 Rule 4(f)(3) is allowed.”); Fabian v. LeMahieu, No. 4:19-cv-00054-YGR, 2020 U.S. Dist.
14 LEXIS 109013, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2020) (“[C]ourt-directed service under Rule 4(f)(3) is
15 as favored as service available under Rule 4(f)(1) or Rule 4(f)(2) and the advisory notes indicate
16 the availability of alternate service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) without first attempting service
17 by other means.”).
18 Defendants do not otherwise contest that the service methods proposed in Plaintiffs’
19 Motion are sufficient to put the Foreign Defendants on notice of these actions pursuant to Rule
20 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court HEREBY
21 GRANTS the Motion as stated below.
22 The underserved Foreign Defendants comprise three China-based Defendants: Suzhou
23 Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd., Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co. Ltd., and
24 Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd.; one Taiwan-based Defendant: Synta Technology Corp. of
25 Taiwan; and eight Canada-based Defendants: Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Pacific Telescope
26 Corp., Synta Canada International Enterprises Ltd., David Shen, Sylvia Shen, Jack Chen, Jean
27 Shen, and Laurence Huen.
28
1 The Court orders Plaintiffs to serve the unserved Foreign Defendants through the
2 following methods, each of which are authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and
3 4(f)(3):
4 • Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou”): Suzhou is a Synta-affiliated
5 Chinese entity. Plaintiffs shall serve Suzhou (1) through Eisner, LLP (“Eisner”), counsel
6 for its U.S-based affiliates, Celestron Acquisition, LLC (“Celestron”) and SW Technology
7 Corp. (“SW”); (2) through its already-served and close U.S. affiliates, Celestron and SW;
8 (3) by email to a well-known and established Suzhou-affiliated email address,
9 syntadavid@163.com; and (4) by certified mail to Attn: David Shen, Suzhou Synta Optical
10 Technology Co., Ltd., No. 65 Yushan Road, New District, Suzhou, China 215011.
11 • Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co. Ltd. (“Nantong”): Nantong is a
12 Synta-affiliated Chinese entity. Plaintiffs shall serve Nantong (1) through Eisner, counsel
13 for its U.S-based affiliates, Celestron and SW; (2) through its already-served and close
14 U.S. affiliates, Celestron and SW; (3) by email to a well-known and established Nantong-
15 affiliated email address, syntadavid@163.com; and (4) by certified mail to Attn: David
16 Shen, Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co., Ltd., No. 399 West Zhongshan
17 Rd., Rugoa City, Jiangsu, China.
18 • Synta Technology Corp. of Taiwan (“Synta Taiwan”): Synta Taiwan is a Synta-
19 affiliated Taiwanese entity. Plaintiffs shall serve Synta Taiwan (1) through Eisner, counsel
20 for its U.S-based affiliates, Celestron and SW; (2) through its already-served and close
21 U.S. affiliates, Celestron and SW; (3) by email to a well-known and established Synta
22 Taiwan-affiliated email address, syntadavid@163.com; and (4) by certified mail to Attn:
23 David Shen, Synta Technology Corp. of Taiwan, No. 89 Lane 4, Chia An W. Road, Lung-
24 Tan, Taoyuan, 32546, Taiwan R.O.C.
25 • Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Pacific Telescope Corp., Synta Canada
26 International Enterprises Ltd., David Shen, Sylvia Shen, Jack Chen, Jean Shen, and
27 Laurence Huen: These Defendants are all Synta-affiliated, Canada-based entities and
28 individuals. Plaintiffs shall serve them (1) through Eisner, counsel for their U.S-based
1 affiliates, Celestron and SW; (2) their already-served and close U.S. affiliates, Celestron
2 and SW; (3) by email to well-known and_ established email addresses,
3 info @olivonmanufacturing.com, support @ skywatcherusa.com, and
4 shentakuol @gmail.com; and (4) by certified mail to the following addresses: 11880
5 Hammersmith Way, Richmond, BC V7A 5C8, Canada and 7531 Lucas Road, Richmond,
6 BC V6Y1G1, Canada.
7 e Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd. (“Ningbo Sunny”): Ningbo Sunny is a Chinese entity
8 affiliated with Co-Conspirator Meade Instruments Corp. (“Meade”). Plaintiffs shall serve
9 Ningbo Sunny (1) through Sunny’s appellate counsel, Greenberg Traurig, LLP; (2)
10 through its wholly-owned and controlled U.S. subsidiary, Meade; (3) by email to a well-
11 known and established Ningbo Sunny-affiliated email address, nbsunny @ vip.sina.com;
12 and (4) by certified mail to Attn: Peter Ni, Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., No. 199
13 Anshan Road, Yuyao, Zhejiang, China 315400.
14
15 For good cause shown, IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
18 Dated: _ December 2, 2020
The Hon. Edward J. Davila
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DIRECT AND INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER.—~—s