Distinct Media Limited v. Doe Defendants 1-50

Filing 49

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT 46 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 8/2/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DISTINCT MEDIA LIMITED,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

13

LEV SHUTOV,

14

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-03312-NC
ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING RE: MOTION FOR
DEFAULT
Re: Dkt. No. 46

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff Distinct Media Limited sought default from the clerk’s office and was
denied. Dkt. Nos. 40, 43. The Court reviewed the request for default.
Defendant Lev Shutov is a Russian citizen, residing in Russia. Thus, the applicable

19

rule for service is Rule 4(f). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(C) provides that

20

service on an individual in a foreign country may be completed by delivering a copy of the

21

summons and of the complaint to the individual personally, unless prohibited by the

22

foreign country’s law.

23

According to the U.S. Department of State, which routinely sends letters of service

24

through diplomatic channels, Russia has suspended executing U.S. judicial assistance

25

requests. See https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-

26

considerations/judicial/country/russia-federation.html. The State Department recommends

27

litigants retain Russian counsel to effect service through means permitted under Russian

28

law. Additionally, commentators suggest that Russian law prohibits service of a complaint
Case No. 15-cv-03312-NC

1

through any means other than official court channels. See Tatyana Gidirimski, Service of

2

United States Process in Russia Under Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

3

10 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J. 691, 710 (2001) (concluding that letters rogatory are the only

4

means of service on a Russian defendant); Spencer Willig, Out of Service: The Causes and

5

Consequences of Russia’s Suspension of Judicial Assistance to the United States Under the

6

Hague Service Convention, 31 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 593, 619 (2009) (citing to Russia’s

7

response to a 2008 Hague Convention questionnaire that methods other than formal service

8

are not permitted in Russia).

9

Here, Distinct Media has attested that it delivered a copy of the complaint and
summons by personal delivery to defendant. The Court received communications from

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Shutov’s attorney in Russia objecting to this Court’s jurisdiction over Shutov.

12

Thus, Distinct Media must provide additional briefing by August 12, 2016,

13

supporting its motion. Specifically, Distinct Media must identify whether it consulted

14

Russian counsel and whether service by personal delivery is prohibited in Russia.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: August 2, 2016

18

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 15-cv-03312-NC

2