St. Francis Assisi v. Kuwait Finance House et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 10 Motion for Alternative Service of Process. The plaintiff may serve the individual defendant Hajjaj al-Ajmi by Twitter. See the attached order.(lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ST. FRANCIS ASSISI,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. 3:16-cv-3240-LB

v.

16

KUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE; KUVEYTTURK PARTICIPATION BANK INC.,
HAJJAJ AL AJMI; AND DOES 1 TO 200

17

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SERVE PROCESS BY ALTERNATIVE
MEANS

Defendants.
INTRODUCTION

18
19
20
21

22
23

Re: ECF No. 10

The plaintiff, St. Francis Assisi (a non-profit corporation), sued the defendants, Kuwait
Finance House, Kuveyt-Turk Participation Bank Inc., and Hajjaj al-Ajmi (an individual) for
damages and equitable relief arising from the defendants’ financing of the terrorist organization
known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which resulted in the targeted murder of
Assyrian Christians in Iraq and Syria. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)
St. Francis has not been successful in serving process on al-Ajmi. (See ECF No. 10.) Al-Ajmi

24
25

is a Kuwaiti national and efforts to locate him have been unsuccessful. (Id.) St. Francis now asks
to serve al-Ajmi by alternative means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) via the social-

26

media platform, Twitter. (Id.) The court grants St. Francis’s request because service via Twitter is

27

reasonably calculated to give notice and is not prohibited by international agreement.

28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-02018-LB

1
2

STATEMENT

3

On June 13, 2016, St. Francis filed the complaint. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) The summons too

4
5
6

was issued on June 13, 2016. (See Summons, ECF No. 6.) Service has not been effected on alAjmi. (See ECF No. 10.) St. Francis attempted to locate al-Ajmi through a skip trace; however, St.
Francis was unable to determine al-Ajmi’s whereabouts. (Id.) Kuwait is not a signatory to the
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; previous

7

attempts to serve defendant Kuwait Finance House through Kuwait’s Central Authority (Kuwait’s

8

specified means of international service) were unsuccessful, as Kuwait’s Central Authority refused

9

to accept the summons and complaint. (Id.)

10

Al-Ajmi has a large following on Twitter and has used the social-media platform to fundraise

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

large sums of money for terrorist organizations by providing bank-account numbers to make

12

donations. (Id.) Al-Ajmi frequently travels from Kuwait to deliver money to Al-Nusrah Front

13

(another terrorist group) in Syria. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Treasury Designates Three Key

14

Supporters of Terrorists in Syria and Iraq (2014). On August 6, 2014, the U.S. Treasury

15

Department sanctioned al-Ajmi as a key supporter of terrorists in Syria by freezing his U.S. assets

16

and banning American entities from doing business with him. Id.
ANALYSIS

17
18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) establishes three mechanisms for serving an individual in
a foreign country: 1) by an internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to

19
20
21

22

give notice, such as those provided by the Hague Convention; 2) if there is no international means
or no means specified then by means reasonably calculated to give notice; or 3) by other means
not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).
Courts have applied Rule 4(f) to allow the order of any means of service as long as it comports

23

with due process and: 1) it provides “notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances to

24

apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford[s] them an opportunity to

25

present their objections”; and 2) it is not prohibited by international agreement. Rio Props., Inc v.

26

Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover

27

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

28

Courts have authorized service by social media in similar cases. For example, in WhosHere,
ORDER — No. 16-cv-02018-LB

2

1

Inc. v. Gokhan Orun, the district court authorized service on a defendant residing in and having his

2

principal place of business in Turkey by email and the social-media platforms, Facebook and

3

LinkedIn. 2014 WL 670817 (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2014). Defendant did business under the trade

4
5
6

names “WhoNear” and “whonearme” in violation of the plaintiff’s trademarked name,
“WhosHere.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff Orun attempted to serve process through Turkey’s Ministry of
Justice in accordance with Rule 4(f)(1) and the Hague Convention; however, the summons and
complaint were returned because the defendant could not be located with the address on record. Id.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

at 1-2. The court granted service by email, Facebook, and LinkedIn because notice through these
accounts was reasonably calculated to notify the defendant of the pendency of the action and was
not prohibited by international agreement. Id. at 3-4. The three accounts were under defendant
Orun’s name and contained information about his “WhoNear” business. Id. at 4.
In Federal Trade Commission v. PCCare Inc., the court also authorized service by email and

12

Facebook to defendants located in India. 2013 WL 841037 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 2013). According

13

to the FTC, the five defendants employed a scheme tricking American consumers into spending

14

money to fix alleged problems with their computers. Id. at 1. The FTC attempted to serve the

15

defendants through the Indian Central Authority in accordance with Rule 4(f)(1) and the Hague

16
17
18

Convention. Id. The Indian Central Authority did not serve the defendants and did not respond to
the FTC’s status inquiries. Id. The court granted service by email and Facebook because these
channels were reasonably calculated to notify the defendants and were not prohibited by
international agreement. Id. at 3-4. The email addresses and Facebook accounts were registered

19
20

under the defendants’ names and used frequently for communication. Id.at 4.
As in WhosHere and PCCare, service by the social-media platform, Twitter, is reasonably

21

calculated to give notice to and is the “method of service most likely to reach” al-Ajmi. See Rio

22

Properties, 284 F.3d at 1017. Al-Ajmi has an active Twitter account and continues to use it to

23

communicate with his audience. Service by Twitter is not prohibited by international agreement

24

with Kuwait.

25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-02018-LB

3

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

The court grants St. Francis’s motion to serve of process by Twitter. St. Francis may use
Twitter to serve process on al-Ajmi.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: September 30, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-02018-LB

4