Hublot Sa v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hublot SA as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 9/24/2026, answer due 10/15/2026.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

ORDER for Electronic Service of Process signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 9/23/2026. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process 22 is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that it made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain Defendants' mailing addresses, that Defendants' addresses are unknown, and that Hague Convention does not apply. The Court further finds that service by email is reasonably calculated to apprise Defendants of the pendency of the action and afford Defendants the opportunity to present objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The Court makes these findings without the benefit of adversarial presentation and therefore is amenable to revisiting them were Defendants to appear and challenge the sufficiency of service. Separate order to issue. Mailed notice

MOTION by Plaintiff Hublot SAfor electronic service of process.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process 12 is denied without prejudice to renewal. Email service is prohibited in China unless the defendants' addresses are unknown. See Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793 (7th Cir. 2026). The Court is unable to determine from the information provided whether Plaintiff's efforts to obtain and verify defendants' addresses were reasonably diligent. The declaration in support of the motion explains in general terms how investigators attempt to obtain defendant addresses, without explaining what was done in this case, for these defendants. At a minimum, any renewed motion for electronic service must set forth, for each specific defendant, each step taken and the results of each step. Additionally, Plaintiff reports that only "in some investigations" did investigators request addresses from sellers under the guise of returning products. If Plaintiff has email addresses associated with the Chinese defendants, it would be reasonable to contact those email addresses to inquire whether an exact physical address can be obtained. Plaintiff does not state it took this simple step. The Court is also not convinced Plaintiff's online research was sufficient. While Plaintiff states investigators searched Google and Baidu maps for addresses, there is no indication Plaintiff searched any business database. Plaintiff also states, for example, that if an address appears to correspond to a residence, the investigators "attempt[] to determine whether any individual associated with the seller can be connected to that address." But Plaintiff does not explain what steps were taken to make that determination, such as sending a test mailing or an on-foot investigator to the address where reasonable or calling any known phone numbers. Under the circumstances of this case, reasonably diligent efforts seem to require Plaintiff to take some additional investigative steps or at least provide more detail regarding its efforts for each specific defendant. Explaining generally how Plaintiff conducts investigations is not enough. Mailed notice

MOTION by Plaintiff Hublot SAfor electronic service of process.