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

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

• SAD Scheme Plaintiff Must Pay $40k to Defendant–Guangzhou Tinpod v. Schedule A Defendants
• New York Judge Shuts Down a SAD Scheme TRO Request–CJB Global v. Schedule A Defendants
• Every SAD Scheme Opinion Is Weird In Its Own Way–Cai v. Chaozhoushi Yitong Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi
• Federal Circuit Rebuffs SAD Scheme Plaintiff–Shenzhen Jisu v. Annex A Defendants
• Court Rebuffs Emojico’s SAD Scheme TRO Request
• Seventh Circuit Limits Email Service to Chinese SAD Scheme Defendants–Kangol v. Hangzhou Silk
• SAD Scheme Defendant Gets Damages Payout from the Bond–Bright Head v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Shopping & Schedule A (Guest Blog Post)
• SAD Scheme Plaintiff Gets Default Win But Blows the Layup on Damages–Shenzen Huajie v. Shenzen Leyibei
• SAD Scheme Copyright Plaintiff Must Compensate Defendants–Shenzhen Langmi v. Schedule A Defendants
• A “But They’re ‘Counterfeiters’!” Argument Doesn’t Clinch a SAD Scheme TRO–Emojico v. Schedule A Defendants
• New Article Alert: “SAD Scheme Standing Orders”
• Greer Burns Law Firm Sanctioned for “Willfully Abusive” and “Egregious” SAD Scheme Judge-Shopping
• Schedule A: Ten Notable Developments in 2025 (Guest Blog Post)
• Second Circuit Rejects Email Service on Chinese Defendants in Baby Shark SAD Scheme Case
• 11th Circuit Sidesteps the SAD Scheme’s Problems–Ain Jeem v. Schedule A
• Another Shill Article Tries to Normalize the SAD Scheme
• Court Sanctions Plaintiff’s Lawyer for Unverified Claims That the Defendant Was Hiding–Guangzhou Youlan Technology Co. Ltd. v. Onbrill World
• SAD Scheme Cases Are a Cesspool of IP Owner Overreaches–Nike v. Quanzhou Yiyi Shoe Industry
• District of New Jersey Adopts SAD Scheme Standing Order
• Court “Sanctions” SAD Scheme Judge Shopping—Crimpit v. Schedule A Defendants
• Chicago-Kent SAD Scheme Symposium TOMORROW
• Amicus Brief Urges Seventh Circuit to Award Attorneys’ Fees in SAD Scheme Case–Louis Poulsen v. Lightzey
• Court Rejects Schedule A Claims Against Sellers of Compatible Parts/Accessories (Cross-Post)
• Judge Kness: the SAD Scheme “Should No Longer Be Perpetuated in Its Present Form”–Eicher Motors v. Schedule A Defendants
• SAD Scheme Lawyers Sanctioned for Judge-Shopping–Dongguan Deego v. Schedule A
• Judge Ranjan Cracks Down on SAD Scheme Cases
• Because the SAD Scheme Disregards Due Process, Errors Inevitably Ensue–Modlily v. Funlingo
• SAD Scheme-Style Case Falls Apart When the Defendant Appears in Court—King Spider v. Pandabuy
• Serial Copyright Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Enforce Third-Party Copyrights–Viral DRM v 7News
• Another N.D. Ill. Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Zaful v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Rejects SAD Scheme Joinder–Toyota v. Schedule A Defendants
• Another Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Xie v. Annex A
• Will Judges Become More Skeptical of Joinder in SAD Scheme Cases?–Dongguan Juyuan v. Schedule A
• SAD Scheme Leads to Another Massively Disproportionate Asset Freeze–Powell v. Schedule A
• Misjoinder Dooms SAD Scheme Patent Case–Wang v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Hammers SEC for Lying to Get an Ex Parte TRO–SEC v. Digital Licensing
• Judge Reconsiders SAD Scheme Ruling Against Online Marketplaces–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• N.D. Cal. Judge Pushes Back on Copyright SAD Scheme Cases–Viral DRM v. YouTube Schedule A Defendants
• A Judge Enumerates a SAD Scheme Plaintiff’s Multiple Abuses, But Still Won’t Award Sanctions–Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather v. Schedule A Defendants
• Why Online Marketplaces Don’t Do More to Combat the SAD Scheme–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• SAD Scheme Cases Are Always Troubling–Betty’s Best v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Pushes Back on SAD Scheme Sealing Requests
• Roblox Sanctioned for SAD Scheme Abuse–Roblox v. Schedule A Defendants
• Now Available: the Published Version of My SAD Scheme Article
• In a SAD Scheme Case, Court Rejects Injunction Over “Emoji” Trademark
• Schedule A (SAD Scheme) Plaintiff Sanctioned for “Fraud on the Court”–Xped v. Respect the Look
• My Comments to the USPTO About the SAD Scheme and Anticounterfeiting/Antipiracy Efforts
• My New Article on Abusive “Schedule A” IP Lawsuits Will Likely Leave You Angry
• If the Word “Emoji” is a Protectable Trademark, What Happens Next?–Emoji GmbH v. Schedule A Defendants
• My Declaration Identifying Emoji Co. GmbH as a Possible Trademark Troll

The post appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.