Dixit v. Smart Digital Group Limited — Entry #58: RESPONSE to Motion re: 57 LETTER MOTION for Conference re Motion for Alternate Service addressed to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald from Andrew W

Case 1:26-cv-00296-NRB               Document 58   Filed 08/04/26         Page 1 of 3


                                                              Joanna A. Diakos
                                                              D 212.536.4807
                                                              F 212.536.3901
                                                              joanna.diakoskordalis@klgates.com

VIA ECF

August 4, 2026

Via ECF

Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

Re: Dixit v. Smart Digital Group Limited, et al., No. 1:26-cv-00296-NRB – Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Pre-Motion Letter Requesting Alternative Service for Individual Defendants

Dear Judge Buchwald:

        We write on behalf of Defendant Cogency Global Inc. (“Cogency”) in response to
Plaintiffs’ July 30, 2026 pre-motion letter seeking leave to serve Defendants Yunting Chen,
Qiongshan Huang, and Sam Wai Hong (the “Individual Defendants”) through either Smart
Digital Group Limited’s (“SDM”) counsel or Cogency, SDM’s registered agent. The request
should be denied because Cogency has no authority to accept service on behalf of the
Individual Defendants and Plaintiffs have not established that service through the Hague
Convention is impracticable. Plaintiffs’ authorities do not otherwise support the relief they
seek.

        First, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Cogency informed them that it would not accept
service on behalf of the Individual Defendants. That is because Cogency is not an agent for
service of process for any of the Individual Defendants, who are former officers and directors
of SDM. Cogency serves only as SDM’s registered agent for purposes of its Form F-1 filing.
Plaintiffs nevertheless ask the Court to deem service on Cogency sufficient as to individuals for
whom Cogency has never acted as an agent and from whom it has no authority to accept
service. Plaintiffs cite no authority allowing a court to compel a registered agent of a


K&L GATES LLP
599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10022-6030
T +1 212 536 3900 F +1 212 536 3901 klgates.com


         Case 1:26-cv-00296-NRB            Document 58   Filed 08/04/26      Page 2 of 3


Page 2


corporation to accept service for former officers and directors who have never designated that
agent for such purpose.

        Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that any Individual Defendant appointed Cogency as
an agent for service of process, and New York courts have long recognized that authority to
accept service cannot be presumed. As one New York Court explained, “[a]n attorney is not
automatically considered the agent of his client for the purposes of the service of process,” and
absent proof that a defendant designated the purported agent to accept service, service is
ineffective. Broman v. Stern, 172 A.D.2d 475, 476 (2d Dep’t 1991). The principle is equally
applicable here.

        Second, while New York courts do allow parties to serve adversaries in Convention
countries by alternative, court-directed means, where a treaty prescribes a method of
international service, its requirements are mandatory absent a meaningful showing that service
through the Convention would be “impracticab[le]” under CPLR 308(5) or 311(b). Mut.
Benefits Offshore Fund v. Zeltser, 140 A.D.3d 444, 446 (1st Dep’t 2016) (affirming denial of
motion for leave for alternative service); Kyoko Yamamoto v. Hidehiko Yamamoto, 43 A.D.3d
372, 372 (1st Dep’t 2007) (affirming denial of plaintiff’s request for alternative service by
personal delivery to counsel).

        Plaintiffs have made no such showing here, but instead simply state that the Individual
Defendants’ addresses are “unknown” because they have thus far been unable to locate them
via “search[ing] publicly available records using Google, SEC filings, and artificial intelligence
platforms.”1 Instead, Plaintiffs ask the Court to bypass the Convention entirely based on
generalized assertions that Hague service in China can be expensive and time-consuming.
Plaintiffs’ position would effectively render Hague procedures optional whenever a litigant
finds them inconvenient.

        Plaintiffs principally rely on Orient Plus International Ltd. v. Baosheng Media Group
Holdings Ltd., 2024 WL 2317715 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2024). It is not clear that that same level
of diligence in attempting to locate the Individual Defendants’ addresses has been effected
here, where, as noted above, their purported diligence consists of internet searches and requests
that counsel and Cogency voluntarily accept service. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ requested alternative
service presents reasonable questions of compliance with basic notice and due process where
the Individual Defendants are—by Plaintiffs’ admission—not current officers or directors of
the Company, and there is no reason to believe that service on SDM’s registered agent or

1
    Plaintiffs’ Pre-Motion Letter, at 2.


K&L GATES LLP
599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10022-6030
T +1 212 536 3900 F +1 212 536 3901 klgates.com


      Case 1:26-cv-00296-NRB               Document 58       Filed 08/04/26   Page 3 of 3


Page 3


counsel would apprise the Individual Defendants of this lawsuit. For those reasons, Plaintiffs’
reliance on Stream SICAV v. Wang (involving service of the then-current general manager of
defendant) is misplaced. Stream SICAV, 989 F. Supp. 2d 264, 279–280 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
(noting that “[a]lthough high-employees of subsidiaries may in some circumstances be far
enough removed from their corporate parents that service upon the parents would not be
“reasonably calculated” to apprise the employees of the pendency of the action, that is not so
here. Wang is the general manager of all of SmartHeat’s Chinese subsidiaries ….”)

In conclusion, Plaintiffs have not shown that alternative service on Cogency is proper where
Cogency has never represented the Individual Defendants, and there has not been sufficient
showing that Plaintiffs’ service through the Hague Convention would be impracticable.

For these reasons, Cogency respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for
leave to effect alternative service through Cogency.


                                                  Respectfully,

                                                  /s/ Joanna A. Diakos
                                                  Joanna A. Diakos

                                                  Counsel for Defendant Cogency Global, Inc.


cc:      All counsel (via ECF)


K&L GATES LLP
599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10022-6030
T +1 212 536 3900 F +1 212 536 3901 klgates.com