Shenzhen Zehuijin Investment Center v. Yingkui

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Shenzhen Zehuijin Investment Center, Limited Partnership (petitioner-appellee) v. Liu Yingkui (respondent-appellant) and Zhang Xin (respondent)
Case no.: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 24-6215 (D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00372-MMA-DEB)
Forum and rules: Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; enforcement under chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 201–08), implementing the New York Convention
Treaty: New York Convention
Court: Ninth Circuit: Consuelo M. Callahan and Lucy H. Koh (Circuit Judges), J. Campbell Barker (District Judge, sitting by designation; author of the opinion)
Underlying award(s): Beijing Arbitration Commission award for around 150 million Chinese yuan
Sector: Loan collection; finance
Outcome: Affirmed (3 August 2026): the district court had general personal jurisdiction over Liu, and the judgment confirming the arbitral award stands.
Amount: Loan of 160 million Chinese yuan (2017); arbitral award of around 150 million yuan.

The dispute

In 2017 Shenzhen Zehuijin Investment Center lent Liu Yingkui 160 million Chinese yuan, which he did not repay. The Beijing Arbitration Commission made an award of around 150 million yuan, and a Singaporean court later ordered Liu to pay it, but he did not. The Investment Center petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to confirm the award under the New York Convention. After two failed attempts at personal delivery, the process server left the petition with an adult cotenant at Liu's residence, then mailed and emailed it to him. Liu moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). He argued that he was domiciled in China, that the loan and award had no link to California, and that presence-based jurisdiction requires service on the defendant's person.

Key holdings

Only general jurisdiction was available, because the claims did not relate to Liu's contacts with California. Liu had not consented, and the district court had not decided domicile, so the panel addressed only presence-based ('tag') jurisdiction. Opinion, pp. 7–8
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not make presence-based personal jurisdiction depend on service on the defendant's person rather than on other means of service. Under the Burnham plurality's historical approach, the premise is service on a defendant who is voluntarily present in the forum, by means reasonably calculated to give notice. Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 78, illustration 1, maps onto these facts. Opinion, pp. 9–12
Justice Brennan's fairness approach in Burnham leads to the same result. Liu had voluntarily lived in California since April 2022 and received the benefits of its laws and services. His place of residence was the least burdensome forum for him. Opinion, pp. 12–13
Insufficient service of process (Rule 12(b)(5)) is a defence separate from lack of personal jurisdiction. Liu's motion to dismiss did not raise it, so it is waived. In the alternative, Liu gave no reason why the constitutional minimum of notice reasonably calculated to inform him was not met. Opinion, pp. 13–15
Liu's argument that California law required strict compliance with its service rules was likewise waived and was not reached. The district court's judgment confirming the award was affirmed. Opinion, pp. 15–16

Procedural history

2017The Investment Center lends Liu 160 million Chinese yuan, which he does not repay.
Date not statedThe Beijing Arbitration Commission makes an award of around 150 million yuan. A Singaporean court later orders Liu to pay it.
Date not statedThe petition to confirm the award is filed in the Southern District of California (Judge Michael M. Anello). The district court rejects Liu's motion to dismiss, confirms the award and enters judgment.
3 December 2025Appeal argued and submitted in Pasadena, California.
3 August 2026Ninth Circuit opinion (for publication) affirms the judgment.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by: Consuelo M. Callahan Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Lucy H. Koh Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
J. Campbell Barker Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (District Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation; author of the opinion)
For the claimant: Proskauer Rose LLP · Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
For the respondent: Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP