Catanzaro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID J. CATANZARO, : No. 3:22-CV-1768

Plaintiff : (Saporito, J.)

Vv. □ (Caraballo, M.J.)

ALIEXPRESS, et al., :

Defendants

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court is Defendant AliExpress’s Motion to Set

Aside Default (Doc. 97), Plaintiff David J. Catanzaro’s Motion for

Default Judgment as to AliExpress (Doc. 98), and Catanzaro’s related

Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 141). The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A). For the reasons set

below, AliExpress’s Motion to Set Aside Default will be granted,

Catanzaro’s Motion for Default Judgment will be denied as moot as to

AliExpress, and Catanzaro’s Motion for Sanctions also will be denied.

I. Background

On November 7, 2022, Catanzaro filed this patent infringement

action against AliExpress and multiple other defendants, both named

and anonymized. Docs. 1, 7. The live second amended complaint was

filed on January 6, 2023, with summons issued for service, accordingly.

Several defendants were dismissed by stipulation thereafter. Docs. 25,

32, 38, 66, 78, 75, 87, 118, 181.

On December 15, 2023, Catanzaro requested entry of clerk’s

default against several defendants, including AliExpress. Doc. 83. As

is relevant to this memorandum, Catanzaro averred that defendant

AliExpress was properly and timely served through its parent company

Alibaba Group and, accordingly, AliExpress’s time to respond to this

action expired on July 7, 2023. Jd. at 2. The same day, Catanzaro filed

a motion for default judgment against AliExpress and other defendants.

Doc. 84.

On January 8, 2024, the clerk’s office entered a default against,

inter alia, AliExpress. Doc. 85. On January 28, 2024, the Court

deemed Catanzaro’s default judgment motion withdrawn based upon

Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 7.5, which requires separate

brief in support of most motions. M.D. Pa. L. R. (L.R.”) 7.5; Doc. 86.

On December 19, 2024, Catanzaro filed an amended motion for default

judgment, with a supporting brief. Docs. 93—94.

On January 10, 2025, AliExpress filed a motion to set aside the

clerk’s entry of default. Doc. 97. In support of its motion, AliExpress

contends that Catanzaro never served it with the summons, and that it

was not aware of this matter until January 2, 2025, when Catanzaro

mailed a copy of his motion for default judgment to a separate Alibaba

entity. Doc. 100 at 8. Upon receipt of the default judgment motion,

AliExpress maintains it “diligently investigated” this case and within a

week, retained counsel to respond to the lawsuit. Doc. 97 at 2.

Shortly after appearing, AliExpress also filed a Corporate

Disclosure Statement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1,

which lists its full name as AliExpress E-Commerce One Pte. Ltd., and

its parent as AliExpress International E-Commerce Pte. Ltd. Doc. 99 at

1. On May 27, 2026, Catanzaro filed a motion for sanctions, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, averring that AliExpress’s Rule

7.1 statement contained inaccurate and misleading information about

its corporate ownership.

Catanzaro’s motion for default judgment, AliExpress’s motion to

set aside default, and Catanzaro’s motion for sanctions are all fully

briefed and ripe for decision.!

Il. Discussion

A. AliExpress’s Motion to Set Aside Default

AliExpress requests that the clerk’s entry of default be set aside,

because Catanzaro’s service upon Alibaba Group’s registered agent in

Delaware was inadequate. First, AliExpress asserts that Alibaba

Group is not its parent company, as set forth in its Rule 7.1 corporate

disclosure statement. Docs. 99; 100 at 5. Second, AliExpress contends

that service on a parent corporation does not constitute service on its

subsidiary, when the latter does not conduct business at the address of

the former. Doc. 100 at 5-6. According to AliExpress, it is based in

Singapore, and its parent is also located in Singapore. Doc. 110 at 1.

1 Catanzaro filed a sur-reply, with exhibits, addressing AliExpress’s motion to set

aside default, but without seeking leave of court, in violation of the Local Rules.

Doc. 111. Local Rule 7.7 dictates that no further briefs may be filed without leave of

court. At the end of his sur-reply, Catanzaro requests the court “allow [him] to file

[t]his sur reply,” Doc. 111 at 7, but leave to file a sur-reply must be obtained in

advance, by motion. Accordingly, the Court does not consider the sur-reply, and an

equal observation applies to his unauthorized “rebuttal” to AliExpress’s corporate

disclosure statement. Doc. 109.

Catanzaro concedes that he did not serve summons upon Alikixpress,

but claims that service upon Alibaba Group’s registered agent in

Delaware was adequate because Alibaba Group is the parent company

of AliExpress. Doc. 107 at 3.

“It is axiomatic that service of process must be effective under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a default or a default judgment

may be entered against a defendant.” Md. State Firemen’s Assn v.

Chaves, 166 F.R.D. 358, 354 (D. Md. 1996) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)).

“As a precondition to entry of either default or default judgment, Fed. R.

Civ. P. 55(a) requires a showing that the party has failed to plead or

otherwise defend as provided by these rules.” Id.

To support his argument that Alibaba Group is AliExpress’s

parent, Catanzaro submits a purported copy of a single and undated

page of AliExpress’s privacy policy, a website screenshot, and what

appears to be a self-created summary of his telephone communications

in 2022 with a person he asserts was “the head attorney for

AliExpress.” Docs. 107-2—-107-4. Catanzaro contends the privacy policy

supports his argument that “AliExpress ... operates under several

affiliate names...” Doc. 107 at 3. Catanzaro does not supply any

authority that would support his view that corporate affiliation is equal

to a parent/subsidiary relationship, and the privacy policy, Doc. 107-2,

does not list “Alibaba Group” anywhere in its text. The website

screenshot that Catanzaro offers likewise does not state Alibaba Group

is AliExpress’s parent. Doc. 107-3. Instead, Catanzaro offers the

document to support his argument there is a “clear and acknowledged

connection” between AliExpress and Alibaba Group. Doc. 107 at 4.

Regarding the phone log, Doc. 107, to the extent that Catanzaro

contends service of process can be conducted telephonically, he fails to

offer any authority that would support such an argument. And nothing

about the self-prepared phone log evinces or constitutes credible

evidence of a parent/subsidiary relationship between the two corporate

entities.

As AliExpress maintains, none of these documents demonstrate,

or could demonstrate, valid service of process upon AliExpress, and do

not refute the statements contained in its signed, dated, and docketed

Corporate Disclosure Statement. A Corporate Disclosure Statement

6

may be considered by a court as evidence of entities’ interrelationships.

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gree USA, Inc., 2019 WL 1244098, at *1

(W.D. Pa. 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1243280

(W.D. Pa. 2019). Indeed, Catanzaro’s filings are not even inconsistent

with AliExpress’s Corporate Disclosure Statement, as they show, at

most, some affiliation between AliExpress and Alibaba Group; not a

parent/subsidiary relationship.

Moreover, even if Alibaba Group was AliExpress’s parent, service

of process on a parent corporation is generally inadequate to constitute

service on a parent’s subsidiary unless there is record evidence that

indicates the subsidiary conducted business at the address where the

plaintiff served the parent corporation. Delaware Valley Surgical

Supply Co., Inc. v. Geriatric & Medical Cirs., Inc., 299 A.2d 237, 241

(Pa. 1973).2 Here, nothing in the record suggests that AliExpress

conducted business at the address of Alibaba Group, and Catanzaro has

not offered any credible evidence addressing that issue.

2 A plaintiff may serve process “pursuant to the law of the state in which the district

court is located, or in which service is effected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Here,

Pennsylvania law governs. ,

Catanzaro cites Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 482 (1991), for the

proposition that “service on a parent company constitutes effective

service on its subsidiaries when the parent controls the daily operations

of the subsidiary. . .” Doc. 107 at 6. However, the Kay case was a civil

rights action that the petitioner brought against the Kentucky Board of

Elections; there was no private party defendant, much less a parent-

subsidiary service issue mentioned in the decision. And although

Catanzaro claims that Alibaba Group “controls” AliExpress’s daily

operations, he again fails to offer any credible record evidence

supporting his conclusory averments. As AliExpress asserts,

Catanzaro’s arguments are apparently based on his “misapprehension”

of the difference between corporate ownership and affiliation between

the two entities. Doc. 145 at 1.

Catanzaro has not offered adequate evidence or facts in support of

his position that he properly served AliExpress.? Thus, the Court will

3 AliExpress’s motion to set aside default alternatively maintains that good cause

exists to set aside the default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Doc. 97 at 5-7. Even if

Catanzaro had properly served AliExpress, the court would find good cause exists to

set aside the default, because the Rule 55(c) factors weigh in its favor. J Supor &

Son Trucking & Riggins Co., Inc. v. Kenworth Truck Co., 791 F. App’x 308, 315 (8d

Cir. 2019) (“we have instructed district courts to consider the following factors: (1)

whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced; (2) whether the defendant has a

grant AliExpress’s motion to set aside default based upon inadequate

service of process. This ruling necessarily renders Catanzaro’s motion

for default judgment against AliExpress moot.

B. Catanzaro’s Motion for Sanctions

Catanzaro seeks Rule 11 sanctions based upon his position that

AliExpress submitted an inaccurate and misleading Rule 7.1 Corporate

Disclosure Statement. Doc. 141-142. He asserts that AliExpress’s SEC

Form 20-F filing, Doc. 1384-2 at 2, which “identifies AliExpress as a

primary business unit within the Alibaba International Digital

Commerce Group (AIDC) segment of the Alibaba Group,” Doc. 141 at 1—

2, contradicts its Corporate Disclosure Statement, which identifies

AliExpress International E-Commerce Pte. Ltd. as its parent company.

Doc. 99. Catanzaro also posits that the Form 20-F constitutes

“conclusive evidence” of a parent-subsidiary relationship between

Alibaba Group Holding and AliExpress. Doc. 142 at 2. Catanzaro

further claims that the Rule 7.1 statement asserted that AliExpress

meritorious defense; [and] (8) whether the default was the result of the defendant's

culpable conduct.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

“has no parent corporation,” Doc. 141 at 1, later clarifying that he

meant to instead allege that AliExpress failed to disclose “it has no

other parent company.” Doc. 147 at 2. None of these positions justify

the imposition of sanctions.

Rule 11 provides, in relevant part, that:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other

paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later

advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies

that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and

belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as

to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the

cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are

warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for

extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for

establishing new law;

(8) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support

after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the

evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based

on belief or a lack of information.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Violations of those requirements permit a court to

impost appropriate sanctions. Jd. R. 11(c)(1).

10

Here, AliExpress’s Corporate Disclosure Statement complied with

the mandates of Rule 7.1, which required it to “file a statement that:

(A) identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation

owning 10% or more of its stock; or (B) states that there is no such

corporation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1). That is precisely what

AliExpress did, by disclosing AliExpress International E-Commerce Pte.

Ltd. as its parent company that owns 10% or more of its stock. Doc. 99.

Catanzaro’s claim that this disclosure is “factually inaccurate,

misleading, and not in line with the spirit of Rule 7.1, which requires

full transparency regarding corporate ownership to ensure judicial

impartiality,” Doc. 141 at 1, is thus incorrect, and expands Rule 7.1

beyond its statutory requirements.

Further, AliExpress maintains:

the SEC Form does not identify the legal entity that owns

AliExpress or otherwise show any parent subsidiary

relationship within Alibaba Group Holding Limited. . .

Therefore, there is no inconsistency between AliExpress’

Corporate Disclosure and the SEC filings on which Plaintiff

relies. The former identifies AliExpress’ direct parent

company, while the latter describes the broader business

segment in which the AliExpress platform operates. Plaintiff

simply conflates these distinct concepts.

11

Doc. 145 at 2-3. A review of the Form 20-F confirms that

characterization. Doc. 134-2 at 2. AliExpress is correct; Catanzaro did

not demonstrate it submitted a false, or even inconsistent document.

His motion for sanctions is therefore denied.4

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant AliExpress’s

Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. 97), deny Catanzaro’s Motion for

Default Judgment (Doc. 93) as to AliExpress only as moot, and deny

Catanzaro ’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 141). Catanzaro’s Motion for

Default Judgment concerning other remaining defendants will be

addressed in a future filing. A separate order shall be issued.

Date: July 13, 2026 | Pillip G. Caraballe

PHILLIP J. CARABALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

its opposition brief, AliExpress seeks sanctions against Catanzaro, contending

that “[a] separate cross-motion for sanctions is not required.” Doc. 145 at 3. The

Local Rules of this court, however, dictate otherwise. A brief may address only one

motion, M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.8 (a), and “[eJach motion and each brief shall be a separate

document.” Id. at 5.1(h). Accordingly, the Court will not entertain AliExpress’s

request for sanctions. Both parties are directed to comply with all applicable local

rules in future filings.

12