Securities & Exchange Commission v. Nagaicevs

Filing 20

ORDER ADDRESSING SERVICE AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO MOVE FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/28/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

8

v.
IGORS NAGAICEVS,
Defendant.

9
10

ORDER ADDRESSING
SERVICE AND
DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO MOVE
FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 12-413 CW

________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

On October 16, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff Securities
11
and Exchange Commission’s motion for permission to serve Defendant
12
Igors Nagaicevs by email.

In that order, the Court noted that,

13
while establishing some of the trading accounts at issue in this
14
case, Defendant used a physical address in Seychelles for a
15
corporate entity with which he was associated, and directed
16
Plaintiff to attempt to serve him through the Seychelles address
17
as well.

The Court also directed Plaintiff send the service

18
documents to Defendant at his address in Latvia using
19
International mail with a return receipt requested.

Finally,

20
because the most recent evidence that the email account
21
[e-mail] was active and in use was more than two years
22
old, the Court directed Plaintiff to seek further proof from
23
Google, Inc. that this account is still active today.

The Court

24
found that, in combination with the other measures ordered, email
25
service upon Defendant was appropriate.
26
On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff served the complaint, summons
27
and other relevant documents upon Defendant by email.
28

Docket No.

1

15.

2

these documents to the addresses in Latvia and Seychelles by

3

International Express Mail.

4

were delivered to the Seychelles address on December 6, 2012.

5

Docket No. 19.

6

Service’s website shows that it is returning to Plaintiff the

7

package sent to the address in Latvia following multiple

8

unsuccessful attempts to deliver it.

9

In addition, on November 19, 2012, Plaintiff mailed copies of

Docket Nos. 16-1, 18.

The documents

Plaintiff represents that the United States Postal

Docket Nos. 16, 17.

On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a supplemental case

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

management statement.

11

it had served a subpoena on Google on December 19, 2012 to request

12

information regarding the current status of the [e-mail]

13

account and that Google recently stated that it would provide

14

notice of the subpoena to the account holder of [e-mail]

15

and allow him or her twenty days, until January 28, 2013, to file

16

an objection to the subpoena prior to producing the requested

17

information.

18

Defendant has failed to respond within the time allowed after he

19

was served by email and authorize the Clerk to enter Defendant’s

20

default.

21

the Clerk for entry of default.

22

Docket No. 17.

Plaintiff represented that

Plaintiff requests that the Court find that

Plaintiff states that, alternatively, it could apply to

In the October 16, 2012 Order, the Court found that service

23

by email was appropriate in combination with the other measures

24

set forth in that order, which have not yet been completed.

25

Accordingly, the Court declines to direct the Clerk to enter

26

Defendant’s default at this time.

27
28

By Thursday, February 14, 2013, Plaintiff shall provide
Google’s response to its subpoena regarding the status of the
2

1

[e-mail] account or, if Google has not disclosed this

2

information, an update regarding the status of its request to

3

Google.

4

default by that date.

5

Plaintiff shall also apply to the Clerk for entry of

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 1/28/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3