The plaintiffs brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of an 'Instant Pot' pressure cooker, including a Chinese corporation, GD Midea.
The plaintiffs failed to formally serve GD Midea in China pursuant to the Hague Convention, although GD Midea's insurer had actual notice of the claim and had mistakenly served a statement of defence.
The plaintiffs sought an order validating service or extending the time for service.
The court held that Rule 17.05(3) is a complete code for service in Hague Convention signatory states, and service could not be deemed or validated simply because the defendant had actual notice.
However, given the lack of prejudice and the defendant's actual knowledge of the claim, the court granted a 24-month extension of time to effect formal service through the Central Authority in China.
