# Catanzaro

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · July 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11406600

## Case

- **Full name:** David J. Catanzaro v. AliExpress, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 13, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11406600

## Opinion text

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deemed Catanzaro’s default judgment motion withdrawn based upon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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11406600. Public record. Not legal advice.