Amazon.com Inc v. Phmn9y3v

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE AMAZON.COM INC., et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C22-840-MJP-MLP 10 v. ORDER PHMN9Y3V, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 On June 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Services LLC, (together, “Amazon”) and Cartier International AG (“Cartier”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant suit against individuals and entities (“Defendants”) responsible for seven Amazon Seller Accounts that advertised and sold imitations of Cartier trademarked products on Amazon’s platform. (Dkt. # 1.) Cartier alleges claims of direct and contributory trademark infringement, while all Plaintiffs allege claims of direct and contributory false designation of origin and false advertising and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (Id. at 23-30.)

21 Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to consolidate this case with a related case alleging similar claims against different defendants, which the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman denied without prejudice. (Dkt. ## 7-8.) Judge Pechman granted Plaintiffs’ motions for expedited third- party discovery to identify Defendants and ordered Plaintiffs to file a status report by March 13, 2023. (Dkt. ## 11-14, 18-21.) On March 10, 2023, Judge Pechman referred “all issues related to service of Defendants” to the undersigned pursuant to General Order 03-23 (Mar. 7, 2023). (Dkt.

4 # 22.)

5 In their Status Report, Plaintiffs state that third-party discovery revealed the identities of three individuals, located in China, who hold “the seven bank accounts that received proceeds from” the seven Amazon Seller Accounts. (Dkt. # 23 at 3.) Plaintiffs also believe they have identified a Defendant, connected with a company located in Singapore, who used social media to direct buyers to the Amazon Seller Accounts. (Id.) Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint to name these individuals, and to move for alternative service. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiffs “request permission to submit a further status report in 90 days, by which time they expect they will have: (1) filed an amended complaint in this action; and (2) either completed service or moved for alternative service.” (Id. at 5.)

14 According to Plaintiffs’ Status Report, some or all Defendants may be located abroad.

15 Although the 90-day time limit for service in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) “does not apply to service in a foreign country[,]” the rule “does not preclude the court from ‘setting a reasonable time limit for service in a foreign country to properly manage a civil case.’” Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1320 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (quoting Baja Devs. LLC v. TSD Loreto Partners, 2009 WL 2762050, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2009)).

20 The Court concludes additional time is warranted. However, Plaintiffs should not expect unlimited extensions if service does not prove to be feasible. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs to, within ninety (90) days of the date this Order is signed, file an amended complaint and serve Defendants or move for alternative service. If Plaintiffs are unable to do so, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

3 Dated this 28th day of March, 2023.

A 5 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge