Tag Archives: Indonesia

Case of the Day: DFSB Kollective v. Bing Yang

The case of the day is DFSB Kollective Co. v. Bing Yang (N.D. Cal. 2013). We reviewed a previous DFSB case in July 2012. As in the earlier case, the claim here was for copyright infringement. One of the defendants, Bin Yang, lived in Vietnam. The other, Indrawati Yang, lived in Indonesia. Neither country is a party to the Hague Service Convention.

The court granted leave under FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve both defendant with process via email. In the circumstances of the case email was reasonably calculated to reach the defendants; indeed, given how they did business it seemed the only way to reach them. The case is pretty unremarkable, and I note it really just to make one point. Because neither Vietnam nor Indonesia is a party to the Hague Service Convention, the court’s decision to permit service of process by email cannot be read as support for the view of the judge in the much-maligned (by me) Gurung v. Malhotra case. That is all.

Case of the Day: Body By Jake Global, LLC v. Susanto

The case of the day is Body By Jake Global, LLC v. Susanto (N.D. Cal. 2012). The claim was that Susanto, an Indonesian company, sold counterfeit exercise equipment on eBay. Body By Jake attempted to serve the summons and complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested, and when Susanto failed to answer, Body By Jake sought a default judgment.

The judge correctly denied the motion and vacated the clerk’s entry of default. Indonesian law does not, according to the court, permit service by mail by a private party, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) permits service by mail, but only if the mail is addressed and mailed by the clerk. Body By Jake argued that its method of service was permissible under California procedural law, but that is irrelevant where the defendant is being served abroad. Easy case. Kudos to Judge James Ware for getting this right even though the motion was unopposed.