Court Wipes Out SAD Scheme Default Judgment Due to Improper Email Service–Deckers v. Litfun

September 22, 2026 · by · in E-Commerce, Trademark

Deckers owns the UGG brand. It is a repeat SAD Scheme plaintiff. In this case, it sued 30 defendants for infringement, got permission to serve the lawsuit by email, and got default judgments against 18 defendants. One of those defendants, Litfun, subsequently made an appearance in the case and sought to unwind the default judgment for, among other reasons, improper service in light of the Kangol case.

In Kangol, the Seventh Circuit said that email service to Chinese defendants isn’t permitted unless the defendant’s address is unknown. So at issue in this case is Deckers’ diligence about determining the defendant’s address. Here’s what Deckers did:

Deckers explained that it searched for the address and entity associated with Litfun’s Amazon account on Google Maps, Baidu Maps, and Bing Maps.  Deckers also searched for the address and entity associated with an earlier lawsuit it brought against a Walmart store using the seller alias “LITFUN” on the same platforms. The searches did not locate either of the addresses “and/or” defendant at these addresses….

While Litfun concedes that it has not taken steps to register its business or address with Google Maps, Baidu Maps, or Bing, it notes that at least two “well-known,” publicly available Chinese databases show the correct address and company name.

The court criticizes Deckers’ effort: “Deckers failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify Litfun’s mailing address before seeking email service.” The court explains:

  • “no authoritative case holds that being unable to verify a defendant’s address on three search engines—despite the address being verifiable on other popular platforms—constitutes reasonable diligence”
  • “at least some of the screenshots taken from plaintiff’s searches depict buildings located at the searched address (as opposed to vacant plots of land). Indeed, counsel’s declaration stated only that the searches did not locate the searched address “and/or” did not locate defendant at the searched address. Reasonably diligent efforts require more. Plaintiff’s use of “and/or” suggests that some physical addresses were returned in the search results but were not specifically tied to defendant in the search results. If an investigation reveals a physical address, reasonable diligence calls for a next step to determine whether that address could be tied to the defendant through other reasonably available sources” (emphasis added).
  • “it is unclear from the record that plaintiff made its alleged efforts before resorting to email service…Plaintiff did not contend that it had exercised reasonable diligence before requesting email service….Before moving for electronic service of process, Deckers needed to take meaningful steps to verify defendant’s address. For example, Deckers could have used more than a search engine (such as more specialized corporate directories or databases) or sent a representative to the reported addresses to confirm that defendant was not operating there” (emphasis added).

So the court lays out two challenges to other SAD Scheme plaintiffs seeking email service of Chinese defendants. First, the plaintiffs have to actually try to find the defendant’s address; and second, if they have some indication that the defendant has a physical address, they have to take reasonable investigatory steps to resolve its accuracy before pleading that the defendant’s address is unknown. This may sound intuitive, but remember the SAD Scheme lives in a parallel due-process-optional universe.

Of course, the court’s standards require plaintiffs to be fully forthcoming with judges in ex parte proceedings and to do individualized defendant-specific homework–steps that SAD Scheme plaintiffs have routinely been allergic to taking. So long as judges rubber-stamp SAD Scheme plaintiff requests, plaintiffs will get away with illegitimate requests to serve Chinese defendants by email. But if other judges follow this opinion’s approach, SAD Scheme plaintiffs will routinely ace themselves aced out of email service and have no good way of serving Chinese defendants. That will have a major impact on the SAD Scheme.

* * *

Litfun also claimed that Deckers “pinches” defendants from cases as a form of judge shopping (echoing Prof. Fackrell’s nomenclature). The court says:

Plaintiff’s litigation practice can look like judge shopping, but the conduct also fits a pattern of a repeat litigant adapting to and complying with the variety of practices employed by different judges in this district….

it is not improper for a plaintiff to proceed against dismissed defendants in a new case where the original judge concluded that the defendants had been misjoined in the first place

Thus, the court rejects Litfun’s request for sanctions for Deckers’ alleged judge-shopping in this case. But the judge does warn that “this does not mean that plaintiff should be entitled to drop a defendant from a complaint over and over again without consequence.” The court acknowledges the potential for plaintiff gamesmanship:

Plaintiff’s technique of effectively achieving a dismissal without a Rule 41 notice by filing a new complaint under Rule 15(a) suggests a gap in the rules….Until the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure close that gap, policing these dismissals falls under the court’s inherent authority

This is what I and others have been saying for years. Plaintiffs exploit soft spots in IP law and FRCP to achieve unjust results. Judges have to plug these doctrinal gaps, especially when the plaintiffs are proceeding ex parte and the judges are not hearing any counternarratives from defendants. Until judges properly supervise and sanction such abuses, plaintiffs will keep filing defective SAD Scheme cases and getting outcomes that defy the rule of law.

Here, the judge concludes that Deckers’ prior dismissals of Litfun were not in bad faith, so the judge does not issue terminating sanctions. Instead, Deckers can try to serve Litfun through the remaining service options, if the time for service has not passed.

Case Citation: Deckers Outdoors Corp. v. Litfun, 1:25-cv-10080 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2026)

Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme