A China Hague service package can be delayed or rejected when the USM-94 request, Summary of Documents, complaint caption, translations, and Chinese defendant address do not line up. The form should be prepared as part of the litigation record, not as a clerical afterthought.
Use the same Chinese legal name, English trade name explanation, address, and caption across the complaint, summons, USM-94, and translations.
The Summary of Documents should track what is actually being served and avoid vague labels that conflict with exhibits or translations.
A clean request form helps later when proving valid service, default timing, and resistance to a motion to vacate.
The USM-94 request form and Summary of Documents tell the Chinese Central Authority what is being served, on whom, and where. Mistakes can create Ministry of Justice questions, returned packages, or later defense arguments that service was unclear.
Problems often include inconsistent defendant names, old addresses, missing Chinese translations, incomplete document descriptions, mismatched summons captions, affiliate names used as if they are legal entities, and exhibits that are not clearly labeled.
Counsel should prepare the USM-94, translations, defendant-name explanation, exhibit index, and address proof so the same record can support Hague tracking, certificate filing, default judgment, settlement leverage, and any later service challenge.
Before filing, serving, or pressing for default, align the evidence, defendant identity, translations, and recovery strategy so the China-facing record and U.S. court record support each other.
The common pattern is inconsistency: the summons, complaint, request form, Summary of Documents, translation, and address proof identify the Chinese defendant in slightly different ways.
Not always, but it can delay submission, invite Ministry of Justice questions, or weaken the record if the defendant later challenges service or default.
Yes. The caption, defendant identity, document list, and address should be settled before final translation and ILCC submission so the package is internally consistent.
Compare this issue with related Hague-service, supplier-dispute, and recovery resources before making filing or service decisions:
The common pattern is inconsistency: the summons, complaint, request form, Summary of Documents, translation, and address proof identify the Chinese defendant in slightly different ways.
Not always, but it can delay submission, invite Ministry of Justice questions, or weaken the record if the defendant later challenges service or default.
Yes. The caption, defendant identity, document list, and address should be settled before final translation and ILCC submission so the package is internally consistent.