Serving Process on a Chinese Defendant: A Strategic Guide to the Hague Convention

48 questions on serving process on a chinese defendant, answered and cited by the UpLaw editorial team.

• Can I FedEx or mail the summons to a Chinese company?
• Can I serve a Chinese company through U.S. diplomatic or consular channels?
• Does a U.S. court's approval of email service guarantee enforcement in China?
• Does everything have to be translated into Chinese?
• Does Rule 4(m)'s 90-day service deadline apply to a Chinese defendant?
• Does the Hague Service Convention govern documents after the summons and complaint?
• Does the Rule 4(d) cost-shifting penalty work against a Chinese defendant?
• Has the scope of “civil or commercial matters” ever defeated a U.S. case?
• How can a Chinese defendant get a default judgment vacated under Article 16?
• How did Schlunk itself defeat the treaty argument on its facts?
• How does a Rule 4(d) waiver help with a foreign defendant?
• How does requiring a U.S. agent for service avoid the Convention?
• How does the address-known question decide whether to use email or the Central Authority?
• How long does Central Authority service in China actually take?
• Is a Chinese defendant's failure to respond to emails enough to justify alternative service?
• What are the limits of relying on SinoType?
• What are the most common reasons China rejects a Hague service request?
• What counts as a “civil or commercial matter” under the Convention?
• What did Rio Properties establish about Rule 4(f)(3)?
• What did Rockefeller v. SinoType hold, and on what facts?
• What diligence must a plaintiff show to claim a Chinese defendant's address is unknown?
• What documents make up a Hague service request package for China?
• What does an unplanned China dispute look like in practice?
• What does Article 15 require before a default judgment can enter?
• What happens if the defendant's address is unknown?
• What if China's Central Authority never returns a certificate of service?
• What if service is valid under U.S. law but invalid under Chinese law?
• What is an Article 13 sovereignty refusal, and why is it alarming?
• What is the Article 19 wrinkle, and can a plaintiff rely on it for China?
• What is the Hague Service Convention and how many countries belong to it?
• What is the permissive view of email service on Chinese defendants?
• What is the plaintiff's triage framework once a dispute exists?
• What is the skeptical view of email service on Chinese defendants?
• What is the two-step Schlunk inquiry for a China case?
• What is the unifying lesson of serving process on a Chinese defendant?
• What Rule 4(f) hooks would a mail-service argument need, and why do none apply to China?
• What seven steps improve the odds a Hague request lands the first time?
• What should a SinoType-style dispute-resolution clause contain?
• What should a transactional lawyer do when papering a deal with a Chinese counterparty?
• What two principles does Volkswagenwerk v. Schlunk establish?
• Where should the enforcement question sit in the life of a cross-border case?
• Which authority handles incoming service requests in the United States and in China?
• Who can sign and submit Form USM-94?
• Why does Convention exclusivity “run two ways” with China?
• Why does email service work in Schedule A cases?
• Why does the Central Authority route remain the gold standard despite its friction?
• Why is arbitration often the strongest structure for a China deal?
• Why is serving a Chinese defendant a strategy problem rather than a clerical task?