NextClimb Investments LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Before the Court is Plaintiff's renewed motion for electronic service of process 17. Plaintiff's first motion was denied in light of Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd., which held that that Hague Convention does not permit electronic service in China. Case No. 25-2205 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026). However, the Hague Convention "shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known." Id. at 8; 20 U.S.T. at 362. Along with Plaintiff's renewed motion, Plaintiff provided a declaration and screenshots attesting that an investigator searched the addresses provided to Amazon by the Defendants on Google Maps and was "unable to identify or verify a corresponding physical location associated with the addresses provided." R. 17-4 at 2. The results of searches using Google Maps are insufficient to establish that an address "is not known" for purposes of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. True, the Seventh Circuit has in the past taken judicial notice of "distance estimates" based on "images available on Google Maps." See Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171, 1177 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013). And some courts have taken judicial notice of whether an address is residential or commercial according to Google Maps. See, e.g., Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bayport Constr. Corp., 2026 WL 1295814, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2026). But while it may be proper to use online mapping services to identify the locations of addresses and geographical features, information about what entities or people occupy certain addresses is categorically different information. And some courts have found that online mapping services are "not conclusive as to the entities that occupy particular addresses." See Daniel v. Musleh Fitness Inc., 2024 WL 983751, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2024); see also GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine, 2024 WL 2193362, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) (finding that taking judicial notice of distance using Google Maps "is different. from taking judicial notice of information available in Google Maps as to what businesses may be associated with any given address"). The Court acknowledges that the results of searches using online mapping services can be evidence of whether a party's address "is not known" for purposes of the Hague Convention. But such evidence cannot be conclusive on that issue without additional evidence of reliability, completeness, and potential for inaccuracies. This is particularly so when searching business addresses located outside the United States, and when the address in question is not written in the Latin alphabet, which is the alphabet of the Court's language of English, but is written in a logographic language (like Mandarin), with which the Court lacks familiarity and facility. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the address is unknown such that the Hague Convention does not apply. Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff NextClimb Investments LLC for Electronic Service of Process (Renewed)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and electronic service of process 8 is granted as to expedited discovery but denied without prejudice as to electronic service of process in light of Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd., Case No. 25-2205 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026). Plaintiff shall submit a new proposed order limited to expedited discovery. Mailed notice.