Zithromia Limited et al v. Gazeus Negocios De Internet SA et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 2 Ex Parte Application ; denying 3 Ex Parte Application. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

ZITHROMIA LIMITED, et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-06475-JD

Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER RE SERVICE AND EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR TRO

v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GAZEUS NEGOCIOS DE INTERNET SA,
et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for alternative service on defendants, who are located in

15

Brazil, is DENIED. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiffs filed the complaint and the service request

16

simultaneously on November 7, 2017. Plaintiffs say they sent copies of the service application by

17

email and Federal Express to defendants and their lawyers in Brazil and the United States.

18

Dkt. No. 6. It is not clear whether a request to accept service was included in these

19

communications.

20

A method of service “must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to

21

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

22

their objections.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004)

23

(internal quotation marks omitted). It is true that the Court may order service on foreign

24

defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) “by other means” not prohibited by

25

international agreements, including by email and service on U.S. counsel. Xilinx, Inc., v. Godo

26

Kaisha IP Bridge 1, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1263-64 (N.D. Cal. 2017). But the circumstances here

27

do not warrant immediate resort to those measures. Plaintiffs have not afforded defendants any

28

opportunity to respond to the email and Federal Express communications. Plaintiffs do not state

1

that defendants have refused or evaded service. They do not point to any specific facts indicating

2

an inability to serve defendants in Brazil and rely only on a generic comment by the U.S. State

3

Department that service in Brazil through letters rogatory can be time-consuming and

4

“problematic.” Dkt. No. 3 at 8 (quoting Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Vinigay.com, No. 11-cv-

5

280-PHX-LOA, 2011 WL 810250, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2011)). This comment appears to have

6

been withdrawn, J.B. Custom, Inc. v. Amadeo Rossi, S.A., No. 10-cv-326, 2011 WL 2199704,

7

at *6 (N.D. Ind. June 6, 2011), and other courts disagree that letters rogatory are the exclusive

8

means of serving process in Brazil. See Brands v. GVD International Trading, S.A., 282 F.R.D.

9

21, 24 (D. Mass. 2012).
Plaintiffs have not shown that they have in fact faced any hurdles that would warrant

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

alternative service. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs’ claim of urgency does not provide

12

a reason in itself to invoke alternative service. The application is denied without prejudice and

13

may be renewed if the circumstances change.

14

Plaintiffs’ “ex parte application” for a TRO, Dkt. No. 2, is also DENIED. As an initial

15

matter, plaintiffs do not clearly address the standards that should govern the application. They

16

rely almost entirely on Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012), but that

17

case is a far cry from the situation here. It involved a lawsuit in the United States during which

18

the defendant ran to a court in Germany to obtain an injunction against the plaintiff. Id. at 879-80.

19

The district court enjoined enforcement of the foreign injunction because the defendant’s actions

20

“frustrated [the district court’s] ability to adjudicate issues properly before it.” Id. at 880

21

(alteration in original). The circuit affirmed the injunction against the foreign order and held that

22

the “threshold consideration” in these circumstances is “whether or not the parties and the issues

23

are the same in both the domestic and foreign actions, and whether or not the first action is

24

dispositive of the action to be enjoined.” Id. at 882 (internal quotation marks omitted). None of

25

these factors or showings are present here.

26

Consequently, the traditional standards should apply to the TRO request, the only question

27

being which approach fits best. On the one hand, plaintiffs call their application “ex parte,” which

28

connotes that they did not provide notice to the other side and so the request would fall under the
2

1

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). On the other hand, they filed a proof of

2

service stating that they gave notice of the TRO application to a variety of lawyers and individuals

3

affiliated with defendants. Dkt. No. 6. In that case, when notice has been given, the application is

4

evaluated under the standards for a preliminary injunction motion. Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,

5

Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 16-cv-6071-JD, 2016 WL 9275454, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016),

6

aff’d, 694 Fed. Appx. 561 (9th Cir. 2017).

7

The service complications here make the question of notice rather murky, but it need not
be decided because the application fails under either approach. Immediate and irreparable harm --

9

which must appear “clearly” in the case of Rule 65(b)(1), and be threatened or likely under the

10

preliminary injunction standard -- is an element that plaintiffs have not established. Plaintiffs

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

were aware of the facts underlying the complaint and the TRO application as early as July 10,

12

2017, when Apple advised them that it had “temporarily removed” their applications from the App

13

Store in response to the Brazilian legal proceedings. Dkt. No. 2 at 7. Any ambiguity on this score

14

was eliminated by July 27, 2017 when Apple confirmed that “the apps will not be restored to the

15

Store.” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs nevertheless waited for over three months before seeking a TRO. It

16

appears that during this time they made some legal inquiries in Brazil, but that neither explains nor

17

excuses the long delay before they acted here. The record does not show that the TRO request is

18

based on anything significant that plaintiffs did not know some time ago. This undercuts

19

plaintiffs’ claim that they will be immediately and irreparably harmed without a TRO. Garcia v.

20

Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 746 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

21

Plaintiffs also fail to show a likelihood of success on the merits or the existence of serious

22

questions for litigation. The unverified complaint and the TRO papers make heated references to

23

“secret” arbitration proceedings in Brazil that have purportedly affected plaintiffs’ commercial

24

rights. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3-5, 30; Dkt. No. 2 at 11; Dkt. No. 3 at 6. But that alone does little

25

to show a likelihood of success or a serious question. Arbitration proceedings are typically

26

confidential in the United States and plaintiffs provide no reason to believe the practice is different

27

or otherwise suspicious in Brazil. In addition, simply criticizing the secrecy of the arbitration does

28

not shed much light on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims or the likelihood they will prevail. On this
3

1
2

scant record, the Court is reluctant to inject itself into legal proceedings in other jurisdictions.
The Court is also concerned about the ex parte aspect of the request. As our circuit has

3

made clear, ex parte TRO applications are disfavored and justified in “very few circumstances.”

4

Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc., v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). This is because

5

“our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice

6

and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.” Id. (quoting Granny

7

Goose Foods, Inc., v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974)). Taking plaintiffs’ own ex parte

8

label at face value, they have not shown why relief should be granted before defendants have had

9

an opportunity to be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). There is “a very narrow band of cases”
where ex parte proceedings might be proper because notice to a defendant might result in actions

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that would undermine a plaintiff’s case, Reno Air, 452 F.3d at 1131, but nothing here suggests that

12

this case falls in that limited domain.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: November 14, 2017

15
16
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4