Hydentra HLP Int. Limited v. Porn69.org et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Service by Publication. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/7/2015.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

HYDENTRA HLP INT. LIMITED, a
foreign corporation, d/b/a METART
Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11
12

PORN69.ORG; et al.,

13

No.: CV15-00451-PHX DGC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff seeks leave to serve Defendant Henry Jay by alternative means

17

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 4(e)(1) and Defendant Nguyen Le Trang by alternative

18

means pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3). Doc. 21.

19

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1) authorizes service of process in a manner following state law

20

for serving a summons in a court where service is made. Plaintiff has established that

21

Defendant Jay claims to reside in the State of Maine. Maine law permits electronic

22

service when the moving party has demonstrated due diligence in attempting to obtain

23

personal service of process, the physical location of the person to be served cannot

24

reasonably be ascertained, and the requested method and manner of service is reasonably

25

calculated to provide actual notice of the pendency of the action. Me.R.Civ.P. 4.
Plaintiff has attempted service at all available physical addresses, to no avail.

26

1

1

Plaintiff has investigated Defendant Jay’s physical whereabouts and has been unable to

2

locate further physical addresses for Defendant Jay, as Defendant Jay has provided a fake

3

physical address. Plaintiff has obtained a working email address: [e-mail],

4

which is linked to Defendant Jay and from which Defendant Jay has communicated with

5

Plaintiff. The Court finds that service of Defendant Jay through the email address

6

[e-mail] is appropriate and comports with due process.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a

7
8

foreign business entity in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for individuals.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) reads, in pertinent part:

9
10

(f)

11
12
13
14

Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal
law provides otherwise, an individual-other than a minor, an
incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filedmay be served at a place not within any judicial district of the
United States:
(1)

by an internationally agreed means of service that is
reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those
authorized by the Hague Convention on Service Abroad
of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents;

(2)

if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an
international agreement allows but does no specify other
means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give
notice:

15
16
17
18
19
20

(A)

as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for
service in that country in an action in its courts of
general jurisdiction;

(B)

as the foreign authority directs in response to a
letter rogatory or letter of request; or

(C)

21

unless prohibited by the foreign county’s law, by;

22
23
24
25
26

(i)

2

delivering a copy of the summons and of the

1

complaint to the individual personally; or

2

(ii)

3

using any form of mail that the clerk
addresses and sends to the individual
personally; or

4

(3)

5

by other means not prohibited by international
agreement, as the court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).

6

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting service under Federal Rule of Civil
7
8
9

Procedure 4(f)(3), which must be (1) directed by the court, and (2) not prohibited by
international agreement. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007,
1014 (9th Cir. 2002).

10
11

In reviewing Rule 4(f)(3), the Ninth Circuit found that “[n]o other
limitations are evident from the text.” Id. Rule 4(f) does not “create a hierarchy of

12

preferred methods of service of process” and, “court -directed service under Rule

13

4(f)(3) is as favored as service available under Rule 4(f)(1) or 4(f)(2).” Id., 284

14

F.3d at 1015. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a method of service must comport with

15

constitutional notions of due process and must not violate any international

16

agreement. Id., 284 F.3d at 1015, 1016. A method of service comports with due

17

process if it is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise

18

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to

19

present their objections.” Id. at 1016, 1017 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover

20

Bank & Trust, 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).

21

“[T]rial courts have authorized a wide variety of alternative methods of service

22

including publication, ordinary mail, mail to the defendant’s last known address,

23

delivery to the defendant’s attorney, telex, and most recently, email.” Id. at 1016.

24

However, in effectuating service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f) (3), a plaintiff

25
26

must obtain prior court approval for the alternative method of service. Brockmeyer v.
May, 383 F.3d 798, 806 (9th Cir. 2004).

3

1

Plaintiff brings a copyright infringement action against Defendant Nguyen Le

2

Trang seeking redress for Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s copyrighted

3

works. In an attempt to determine the location of the owners and operators of the

4

web sites, Plaintiff conducted early discovery, serving subpoenas on known vendors

5

providing services for the web sites. Plaintiff discovered that these vendor accounts

6

are in the name of Nguyen Le Trang, with the following registered email:

7

[e-mail]. The address information for Nguyen Le Trang was limited

8

to Vietnam. Plaintiff investigated the address provided to the vendor for Nguyen Le

9
10
11

Trang and determined that the address is not connected to Nguyen Le Trang. Thus,
Plaintiff has an email address for Nguyen Le Trang that was provided to the Vendor,
but has not obtained a valid physical address despite diligent efforts to find one.
In the absence of a valid address, Plaintiff cannot personally serve

12

Defendant in Vietnam. In view of the difficulties surrounding personal service
13

without the ability to determine an actual physical address, Plaintiff seeks an order
14
15
16
17

permitting service on Defendant Trang by email and has obtained an email address
for her. Plaintiff asserts that service through email comports with due process
because it is reasonably calculated to inform Defendant of the impending action, and
under the circumstances here, it is the only means of providing notice to Defendant.

18

In Rio Properties, the Ninth Circuit found that email was “the method most

19

likely to reach” a defendant who operated a website from Costa Rica with no

20

discoverable street address in either the United States or Costa Rica, and who only

21

provided an email address as a contact. 284 F.3d at 1017-118. Like Rio Properties,

22

Plaintiff argues Defendant is located in Vietnam and has a business that is conducted

23

through the internet. Furthermore, through its investigation, Plaintiff has been unable

24

to determine a physical address for Defendant and is, thus, unable to serve

25

Defendant by any other means.

26

4

1

Plaintiff also contends there is no authority that expressly provides or implies

2

that email service is prohibited by international agreement, or otherwise, in

3

Vietnam. Additionally, the decision in Rio Properties and other cases from

4

district courts nationwide support the proposition that service by email is not

5

generally prohibited by international agreement. Bullex v. Yoo, 2011 U.S. Dist.

6

LEXIS 35628 (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2011) (finding email service appropriate upon

7

defendant of unknown location in South Korea); Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd v.

8

Wikileaks, 2008 WL 413737, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (finding plaintiff had

9
10
11
12

successfully demonstrated that service through email was not prohibited by an
international agreement); Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., 2007 1140639,
at 2 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (concluding that there was no showing that service by email was
prohibited by an international agreement).
The Court agrees and finds that service of Defendant Nguyen Le Trang

13

through email is appropriate and comports with due process. Plaintiff has
14
15
16
17
18
19

demonstrated that it has been unable to obtain a physical address for Defendant
Nguyen Le Trang. Additionally, Plaintiff has shown that because Defendant
conducts business through the internet, service through email will give Defendant
sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. The Court also finds that issuing an
order allowing service via email would not be prohibited by international
agreement.

20

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Alternate Service on

21

Defendants Henry Jay and Nguyen Le Trang (Doc. 21) is granted.

22

Defendants may be served at [e-mail]. Service is valid upon

23

transmission of an email to the Defendants.

24

Dated this 7th day of December, 2015.

25
26

5

These