Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a plaintiff was entitled to a 60-day extension to effectuate service on a Chinese product manufacturer.

Joanne Knupp’s 21-month-old daughter was severely injured when she ingested a CR2032 lithium button battery that fell out a wireless remote that was part of a set of fairy lights sold by Amazon.com under the Homemory brand. Knupp, individually and on her daughter’s behalf, sued Amazon.com Services, LLC, and Chinese manufacturer Xiamen Huanqiu Youxuan Jinchukou Youxian Gongsi (Xiamen), alleging products liability claims. Approximately two-and-a-half months after the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding Xiamen as a defendant, the court held a mid-discovery status conference. Plaintiff counsel informed the court that they had encountered difficulties serving Xiamen and that they would attempt service on the entity via a California address and attempt to make contact through an email address to determine whether there were more efficient ways of effectuating service. The plaintiffs then filed an ex parte application to extend the time for service by 60 days.

Granting the application, the court noted that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), where a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, a court must dismiss the action without prejudice. Where the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court added, a court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Citing case law, the court found that whether good cause for delay has been shown is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs had attempted service on Xiamen at two U.S. addresses provided by Amazon; requested to serve Xiamen through the Hague Convention; and attempted to contact the company through four email addresses, none of which yielded a response. In light of these efforts, the court said, there was good cause for allowing a 60-day extension to effectuate service.

Citation: Knupp v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 2801542 (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: John Buche and Byron Ma, both of La Jolla, Calif.

Comment: See also Vey v. Amazon.com, 2024 WL 2396840 (W.D. Pa. May 23, 2024). There, Howard Vey Jr. alleged that he was seriously injured while climbing a tree stand he purchased from Amazon.com. He sued Amazon.com and others, alleging claims for negligence, strict liability, manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability and/or breach of warranty for a particular purpose, unfair trade practice, and unjust enrichment. Amazon moved to dismiss the last four claims. Granting in part and denying in part, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of express warranty to proceed to discovery. The court found that a full factual record was required before it could decide whether Amazon had made actionable express warranties. Louis J. Kroeck, Pittsburgh, Pa., represented the plaintiff.