MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for an Order pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure vacating the Default Judgment entered against them on September 14, 2020, and permitting them to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 24. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Default, see Dkt. No. 12, which the Clerk of the Court entered the next day, see Dkt. No. 13. Having obtained entry of default, Plaintiff moved for entry of a default judgment on May 29, 2020. See Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff coordinated with process servers to serve the Notice of Motion for Entry of Default upon Defendant CellnTell at its offices in Mississauga, Ontario, and upon Defendant Reliance via the New York Secretary of State. See Dkt. No. 29-2, Affidavit of Morgan Nickerson, dated March 24, 2021, (“March 2021 Affidavit”) at 12 & Exhibit F attached thereto. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on September 14, 2020. See Dkt. Nos. 18-19. Thereafter, Plaintiff learned that Defendant CellnTell had $256,330.32 in its Amazon.com account and that Defendant Reliance had $118,943.78 in its Amazon.com account. See Dkt. No. 22-2, Declaration of Morgan Nickerson, dated November 23, 2020 (“November 2020 Declaration”) at 8. Therefore, on November 23, 2020, Plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment against Defendants. See Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff coordinated service upon Defendants of the Motion Scheduling Notice as to Plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgment by serving Defendant CellnTell via FedEx at its Ontario address and received confirmation of receipt. See March 2021 Affidavit at 17 & Exhibit G attached thereto. As New York turnover law required, Plaintiff served the Notice upon Defendant Reliance via certified mail at Defendant Reliance’s registered address listed on the New York State Secretary of State website and its invoices with customers, the same address it previously served its pre-litigation demand letter and received confirmation of delivery: Mohammad Awais, 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1008, Albany, NY 12260. See March 2021 Affidavit at 18 & Exhibit H attached thereto. However, the service package delivered to Defendant Reliance’s registered address was returned as “Attempted Not Known.” See id. Thereafter, on February 8, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgment, ordering Amazon.com to pay Plaintiff the funds in its possession to satisfy the judgment against Defendants. See Dkt. No. 23. On March 3, 2021, nearly one month after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgment, Defendants appeared in this action by filing the pending motion. See Dkt. No. 24. III. DISCUSSION A. Service on Defendant Reliance “Plaintiff has ‘the burden of proving proper service.’” AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Clarion Med. Techs., No. 18-30038-MGM, 2019 WL 10787926, *11 (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting Rivera-Lopez v. Municipality of Dorado, 979 F.2d 885, 887 (1st Cir. 1992)). It is well-established that “[s]ervice of process on a corporate defendant by serving the summons and complaint on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law §306 is valid service[.]” Shimel v. 5 S. Fulton Ave. Corp., 11 A.D.3d 527, ___, 783 N.Y.S.2d 54, 55 (2d Dep’t 2004) (citing Green Point Sav. Bank v. 794 Utica Ave. Realty Corp., 242 A.D.2d 602, 664 N.Y.S.2d 744; Harbert Offset Corp. v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 174 A.D.2d 650, 571 N.Y.S.2d 507). Furthermore, “ [s]ervice upon a corporation ‘shall be complete when the secretary of state is so served.’” Cascione v. Acme Equip. Corp., 23 A.D.2d 49, 50, 258 N.Y.S.2d 234, 236 (1st Dep’t 1965) (quoting Business Corporation Law, §306). This is true “irrespective of whether the process subsequently reaches the corporate defendant.” Associated Imports, Inc. v. Leon Amiel Publisher, Inc., 168 A.D.2d 354, 354, 562 N.Y.S.2d 678, 679 (1st Dep’t 1990) (citing Micarelli v. Regal Apparel, 52 A.D.2d 524); see also Perkins v. 686 Halsey Food Corp., 36 A.D.3d 881, 881, 829 N.Y.S.2d 185, 186 (2d Dep’t 2007) (citing Business Corporation Law §306[b][1]; Flick v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 50 [1990]). Plaintiff’s proof of service on Defendant Reliance states that the process server effected service on “Reliance Distribution Inc. c/o Mohammed Awais on Amy Lesch, who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of New York State, Secretary of State on 4/15/2020.” See Dkt. No. 11. Defendant Reliance does not offer any proof that Plaintiff did not, in fact, serve the Secretary of State on its behalf pursuant to New York Business Corporation Law §306. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to the extent that they argue that Plaintiff did not properly effect service on Defendant Reliance. B. Service on Defendant CellnTell There is no dispute that “[a] foreign entity may be served with process pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”).” AngioDynamics, 2019 WL 10787926, at *11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1), 4(h)(2), 4(l)(2)(A)). There is also no dispute that “Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention.” Id. (citing Marcantonio v. Primorsk Shipping Corp., 206 F. Supp. 2d 54, 58 (D. Mass. 2002) (“Canada…entered into the Hague Convention in April 1989″)). “‘[T]o make effective service in a country that has joined the Hague Convention, a plaintiff must follow the provisions of the treaty,’ and ‘[t]he country in which service is being made is the country whose laws must be obeyed.’” Id. (quoting [Marcantonio, 206 F. Supp. 2d at 58]). “The Hague Convention ‘requires each member country to designate a Central Authority to receive documents from another member country’…[and, i]n addition,…permits service by other means so long as the destination country does not object….” Id. (quoting Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004)) (citing Hague Convention, arts. 10, 11, 19; Dimensional Comm’cns, Inc. v. OZ Optics Ltd., 218 F. Supp. 2d 653, 655 (D.N.J. 2002) (“[T]he Hague Convention permits alternate channels of service so long as they are not objected to by the receiving State.”)). “‘To determine whether the destination country objects to a particular form of service, courts have looked to the service laws of that country to determine whether the employed method of service would be valid therein.’” Id. (quoting Jerge v. Potter, No. 99-CV-0312E(F), 2000 WL 1160459, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2000)). In this case, because Defendant CellnTell is located in the Province of Ontario, Canada, the laws of that Province control the question of whether Canada would object to the method of service. “Ontario has rules of civil procedure governing service on a corporation.” Id. (citing Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure 16.01(1), 16.02(1)(c), available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulations/900194). “Under those rules, a corporation must be personally served with ‘originating process’ ‘by leaving a copy of the document with an officer, director or agent of the corporation, or with a person at any place of business of the corporation who appears to be in control or management of the place of business.’” Id. (quoting [Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure] at R. 16.01(1), 16.02(1)(c)); see also Dimensional Commc’ns, Inc. v. OZ Optics Ltd., 218 F. Supp. 2d 653, 656 (D.N.J. 2002). Finally, “[i]n the absence of effective service of summons, a federal court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” Bidonthecity.com LLC v. Halverston Holdings Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 9258 (ALC) (MHD), 2014 WL 1331046, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (citing Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S. Ct. 404, 98 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1987)). The Proof of Service that Plaintiff filed with regard to its service on Defendant CellnTell states as follows: “I personally served the summons on the individual at 401 Traders Blvd E #1, Mississauga, ON L4Z 2HB on April 17, 2020.” See Dkt. No. 10. Although the Proof of Service does not provide the name of the “individual” who was personally served, Plaintiff also submitted the affidavit of its Process Server, Mohammed Ahmed, in which he states that the “facts contained [therein] are true and accurate to the best of [his] knowledge and recollection” and are based on his “own personal knowledge.” See Dkt. No. 29-1. He further states that, “[a]t approximately, 2 p.m. on Friday, April 17, 2020,” he arrived at CellnTell’s office, “knocked on the door to Cellntell office (which was clearly marked as Cellntell) and spoke with an individual named Preet Sarkaria.” See id. at
5-6. He also states that “Ms. Sarkaria appeared to be in her place of employment and based upon my experience as a process server appeared to be in control or management of the place of business at the time of service.” See id. at 7. Mr. Ahmed then states that he “handed Ms. Sarkaria an envelope containing the above referenced summons and complaint from this matter. She opened up the envelope containing the summons and complaint in front of me as soon as she received it from me.” See id. at 8. Based on his experience as a process server, Mr. Ahmed states that it is his “opinion that she noticed that it was a court document.” See id. at 9. Furthermore, he states that, based on his “experience as a process server, this is proper service of Cellntell under Canadian law.” See id. at 11. In response, Defendants submitted the Affidavit of Sajid Butt, in which he states that he “makes this Affidavit upon [his] personal knowledge and…that the facts set forth herein, and in the Complaint in this matter, are true and correct.” See Dkt. No. 30-1 at 1.1 He also states that he is “an authorized representative of [Defendant CellnTell],” see id. at 2, and that “CellnTell was not served with process in this action on April 17, 2020 or otherwise,” see id. at 5. He explains that “[t]he Province of Ontario enacted strict lockdown procedures due to the COVID-19 Pandemic around March 2020 [and that a] mandatory 10-day lockdown of businesses ended in early April.” See id. at
