Verde Media Corp. v. Levi et al

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying as moot 40 Motion to Appear by Telephone; granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Quash; granting 27 Motion to Extend Deadline for Service of Summons and Complaint. The Court VACATES the hearing set for Friday, July 11, 2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VERDE MEDIA CORP.,

9

Plaintiff,
vs.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14

RON LEVI, ARDESHIR S. AKHAVAN,
HARKLET ENTERPRISES, LTD., NUNATON
COMPANY, LTD., INTERNET BUSINESS
SERVICES, LLC, NAUTELL CAPITAL LTD.,
CASH TRAFFIC LTD., AND ALACRE TRADING
LTD.,

Case No. 14-cv-00891 YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 18);
GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
(DKT. NO. 27);
DENYING MOTION TO APPEAR BY PHONE
(DKT. NO. 40)

Defendants.

15

Plaintiff Verde Media Corporation (“Verde”) brings this action alleging claims for: (1) breach
16

of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4)
17

fraudulent inducement; (5) tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships;
18

(6) violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §
19

1961 et seq.; (7) conspiracy to violate RICO; and (8) false advertising in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
20

1125(a), the Lanham Act, against multiple defendants. Defendants Ron Levi, Ardeshir S. Akhavan,
21

Harklet Enterprises, Ltd., Nunaton Company, Ltd., Nautell Capital Ltd., Cash Traffic Ltd., and
22

Alacre Trading Ltd. (“Moving Defendants”) bring the instant motion to quash or dismiss the
23

summons and complaint. (Dkt. No. 18.) Moving Defendants seek to dismiss or quash service as to
24

Verde’s original summons and complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) of the Federal
25

Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that: (1) Verde’s original summons was defective; (2)
26

service on individual defendant Ron Levi was insufficient because it was not attempted at his home
27

or office address; and (3) attempted service on the entity defendants, by leaving documents with a
28

receptionist not authorized to receive service of process, was also insufficient.

1

Verde subsequently filed its Motion to Extend Deadline for Service of Summons and

2

Complaint (Dkt. No. 27), requesting that Verde be given additional time to serve any defendant as to

3

which the Court finds service deficient.
Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the

4
5

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS:
(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) for defective summons is

6
7

DENIED AS MOOT. The amended summonses, issued April 3, 2014, cured the defects that were the

8

subject of the instant motion.
(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Quash pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) is GRANTED IN PART

9
10

AND DENIED IN PART as

11

I.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

set forth below.1

BACKGROUND
Verde is a broker of internet traffic which connects adult website advertisers with publishers

13

and networks in order to increase website traffic and revenue. Verde’s complaint alleges that

14

defendants “engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices, including fraud, to mislead [Verde] into

15

brokering key relationships for Defendants, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of Internet traffic

16

being driven to Defendants’ adult and dating websites, and millions of dollars in damages to [Verde]

17

when Defendants first avoided, and later flatly refused, payment of the broker commissions owed to

18

[Verde].” (Complaint ¶ 2.)

19

Verde filed its original complaint on February 27, 2014, naming as defendants Ron Levi,

20

Ardeshir S. Akhavan, Harklet Enterprises, Ltd. (“Harklet”); Nunaton Company, Ltd., (“Nunaton”);

21

Internet Business Services, LLC (“IBS”); Nautell Capital Ltd., (“Nautell”); Cash Traffic Ltd. (“Cash

22

Traffic”); and Alacre Trading Ltd. (“Alacre”).2 Harklet, Nunaton, Nautell, and Alacre are alleged to

23
1

24
25
26

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES
the hearing set for July 11, 2014. Thus, the request to appear by phone (Dkt. No. 40) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
2

27
28

On May 23, 2014, the same day as it filed its response to the motion to quash, Verde filed a
First Amended Complaint, naming four new defendants: Kristi Luhar, Guy Mizrachi, Internet Live,
LLC, and Internet Brand, LLC. Additional summons were issued as to these new defendants on May
29, 2014. Service as to these new defendants is not at issue in this motion.
2

1

be limited companies located in the country of Cyprus. IBS and Cash Traffic are alleged to be

2

limited companies of unknown origin. Verde alleges that individual defendants Levi and Akhavan

3

own and operate a complex collection of domestic, foreign, and international entities, including the

4

named company entity defendants.

the original complaint contest service. Verde filed returns of service. (Dkt. Nos. 10-17). As to the

7

individual defendants, the returns of service show several attempts at personal service at home

8

addresses for the individuals, as well as a purported business address, an office on Douglas Fir Road,

9

Calabasas, California. Service was then made by substituted service under California Code of Civil

10

Procedure section 415.20, on “Kat Kruz,” a person apparently in charge of the office. The returns of

11

service on the entity defendants indicate that service was made upon “Ron Levi – Person authorized

12
Northern District of California

With the exception of IBS (which filed a motion to dismiss), all of the defendants named in

6

United States District Court

5

to accept service of process” by leaving documents with “Kat Kruz.” The returns of service do not

13

indicate what documents were served, but only reference an “attached list” that is missing from the

14

filed copies.

15

II.

APPLICABLE STANDARD

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(B) requires that the contents of a summons be

17

directed to the defendant and properly issued by the Court. A separate summons must be issued as to

18

each defendant per Rule 4(b). The plaintiff presents the completed summons to the clerk of the court

19

for signature, seal, and issuance. F.R.C.P. 4(b). Rule 4 further provides that service may be made on

20

an individual in the manner provided under state law or by doing any of the following: (a) delivering

21

a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (b) leaving a copy of each

22

at the individual’s usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides

23

there; or (c) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized to receive service of process. F.R.C.P.

24

4(e). Where the party to be served is a corporation, partnership or other unincorporated association,

25

service may also be completed by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer,

26

managing agent, or other agent authorized to receive service of process, among others. F.R.C.P.

27

4(h). Finally, service on a foreign entity may require compliance with other internationally agreed

28

means of service, such as the Hague Convention. F.R.C.P. 4(f).
3

A defendant may move to dismiss or quash under Rule 12(b)(4) for a defect in the summons

1
2

itself and under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. While Rule 4’s requirements for

3

the form and contents of the summons itself are construed liberally, requirements for the manner of

4

service are strictly interpreted. Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. v. Harris, 936 F.2d 297, 300 (7th

5

Cir. 1991). “Once service is challenged, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that service was

6

valid.” Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Where it appears that effective

7

service can be made and there is no unfair prejudice to the defendant, quashing service rather than

8

dismissing the action is the appropriate course. Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25, 30-31 (3rd Cir.

9

1992).

10
11

III.

DISCUSSION
As to the motion under Rule 12(b)(4), Verde essentially concedes the original summonses

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

were improper. The summonses issued with the original complaint were defective because they

13

named only Defendant Ron Levi, omitting any reference to any other defendants. On the copies of

14

the summons provided to Cruz at the time of the putative service, additional defendants’ names were

15

apparently handwritten on a copy of the original, Clerk-issued summons. (Declaration of Katiuska

16

Cruz at ¶ 3.) Plainly, the form of summons served on Cruz did not comply with Rule 4. However,

17

the deficiencies of form were cured with the issuance of amended summonses.3 Subsequent to the

18

filing of the instant motion, on April 3, 2014, Verde submitted, and the Court issued, amended

19

summonses for each defendant named in the original complaint. Thus, the motion to quash based on

20

a defective form of summons, while meritorious, is now moot.

21

More significant is Verde’s failure to establish that the manner in which it served the Moving

22

Defendants was proper. First, as to Ron Levi, the evidence in the record indicates that he does not

23

maintain a business address at the Calabasas office. (Declaration of Guy Mizrachi at ¶¶ 1, 2, 6.)

24

Thus, service on Levi as an individual, by attempts at personal service at the Calabasas office as his

25

business address, and by leaving a copy there as substitute service, is insufficient.

26
27
3

28

It is unclear from the record whether the amended summonses have actually been served.
Regardless, that fact is not at issue in the instant motion.
4

1

The evidence also indicates that Levi is not, and was not at the time of the service attempts, a

2

corporate officer or a person authorized to receive service of process for any of the entity defendants.

3

(Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, attempts to serve the entity defendants by serving Levi, through Cruz, do not

4

effect proper service of process. Further, the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Cruz is not

5

a person authorized to receive service of process for any of the entity defendants. In her declaration,

6

Cruz indicates that she is a legal assistant at Internet Brand, LLC (not named as a defendant at the

7

time of the motion), working at the Calabasas address.

8

In its opposition, Verde contends only that it is “informed and believes” that each of the

9

Moving Defendants is doing business out of the Calabasas address. This belief alone is not enough

10

to create an evidentiary issue as to Levi or the entity defendants, given the evidence provided by the

11

Moving Defendants.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Verde’s argument that it requested Moving Defendants waive service pursuant to Rule

13

4(d)(1), and withdrew that request when Moving Defendants requested withdrawal as a condition of

14

participating in an early mediation (after the filing of the motion to quash), is without effect. Failure

15

to sign a waiver does not relieve Verde of its responsibility to ensure service of process has been

16

effected. Cf. F.R.C.P. 4(d)(2) (providing for costs of service if defendant located within the United

17

States fails to comply with a request for waiver)

18

Verde also argues that its attempt at substitute service should be considered proper because

19

“Mizrachi does not provide any alternative addresses for Levi or the Corporate Defendants to support

20

his statement that they do business at a location other than the Douglas Fir Office.” (Pl.’s Opp’n

21

6:17-20). It is Verde’s burden to establish that it has effected service. Absent a failure to provide

22

responses to a proper discovery request, Mizrachi and Internet Brand, LLC, are under no obligation

23

to provide address information for other, unserved defendants.

24

As to Defendant Akhavan, the Moving Defendants submit no evidence refuting the propriety

25

of substitute service by attempting at personal service, and leaving a copy, at the Calabasas address.

26

Indeed the motion focuses only the defective summons issue with respect to Akhavan. California

27

state law allows service to be left with a “person apparently in charge of the office or place of

28

business,” after reasonable attempts to satisfy the personal service requirement. Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
5

1

§ 415.20. Because the prima facie evidence of service on Akhavan in the return of service filed with

2

the Court is not refuted by the Moving Defendants, the Motion to Quash as to Defendant Akhavan is

3

DENIED.

4

IV.

5

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) for defective summons is

6

DENIED AS MOOT; and the Motion to Dismiss or Quash pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient

7

service of process is GRANTED as to Defendants Ron Levi, Harklet Enterprises, Ltd., Nunaton

8

Company, Ltd., Nautell Capital Ltd., Cash Traffic Ltd., and Alacre Trading Ltd., and DENIED as to

9

Defendant Ardeshir Akhavan. Service as to Defendants Ron Levi, Harklet Enterprises, Ltd.,

10

Nunaton Company, Ltd., Nautell Capital Ltd., Cash Traffic Ltd., and Alacre Trading Ltd. is

11

QUASHED.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Based upon Verde’s unopposed request and the interests of justice, the Court GRANTS

13

Verde’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Serve Moving Defendants who were not served

14

properly. Verde has an additional 120 days from the date of this Order to serve Defendants Ron

15

Levi, Harklet Enterprises, Ltd., Nunaton Company, Ltd., Nautell Capital Ltd., Cash Traffic Ltd., and

16

Alacre Trading Ltd.

17

This terminates Docket Nos. 18, 27, 40.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Date: July 9, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6