Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. March et al

Filing 14

ORDER: Plaintiff's (Doc. 9 ) Motion for Alternate Service is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 12/20/2010. (mdc)

-BLM Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. March et al

Doc. 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 HAYES, Judge: 23 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Alternate Service on Defendants, Ryoichi 24 Watanabe, Jason Phillips, David Smith, Adrush Media, and Direct Privacy ID 826C91 (ECF 25 No. 9) filed by Plaintiff. 26 27 28 On December 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Voluntary Dismissal of Direct Privacy ID 826C9 (ECF No. 13).
-110cv1809 WQH BLM
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California Corporation, vs. JAMES MARCH, individually; PERRY SJOGREN, individually; DI S.A., a foreign corporation; RYOICHI WATANABE, an individual; MARK BURKE, an individual; JASON PHILLIPS, an individual; DAVID SMITH, an individual; ADRUSH MEDIA, a foreign corporation; NAMEVIEW, INC., a foreign corproation; MYCLICKTO.COM, a California corporation; DIRECT PRIVACY ID 826C9; and DOES 1-500, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 10cv1809 WQH (BLM) ORDER

Defendants.

BACKGROUND

Dockets.Justia.com

1

On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, filed the Complaint (ECF

2 No. 1) and on October 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) 3 alleging claims of cyberpiracy, cybersquatting, and trademark infringement against Defendants 4 for their use of website domain names which target Plaintiff's trademark CORBIN FISHER. 5 Plaintiff contends that Defendant Watanabe is "believed to be" a resident of Tokyo who 6 registered an infringing domain name through Godaddy.com; Defendant Phillips is "believed 7 to be" a resident of the UK who registered an infringing domain name through 8 Publicdomainregistry.com; Defendant Smith is a foreign individual who registered infringing 9 domain names through Above.com; and Defendant Adrush Media is a name holder for an 10 infringing domain name registered through Directnic, Ltd. Id. at 4-8. 11 Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court allowing Defendants to be validly served via

12 email. Plaintiff contends that the locations listed in the domain name information for 13 Defendants Watanabe, Phillips, Smith, and Adrush Media are incorrect and were likely "used 14 in order to evade process." (ECF No. 9-1 at 2). Plaintiff contends that it has diligently 15 attempted to locate the physical addresses of Defendants, but has been unable to do so. 16 Plaintiff contends that it has located the email addresses of Defendants Watanabe, Phillips, 17 Smith, and Adrush Media. Plaintiff contends that, "Plaintiff is unaware of any international 18 agreement with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Japan, Grand Cayman, or Australia 19 which prohibits service via email." Id. at 5. 20 21 DISCUSSION Plaintiff bears the burden of effectuating proof of service. See Butcher's Union Local No.

22 498, United Food and Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538 (9th Cir. 23 1986). To meet the due process requirement, "the method of service crafted by the district 24 court must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties 25 of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Rio 26 Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). 27 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides, in pertinent part: [A]n individual ... may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
-210cv1809 WQH BLM

1 2 3

(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice... (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) (providing that a foreign corporation must 5 be served in a manner prescribed by Rule 4(f)). Service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) 6 directed by the court; (2) not prohibited by international agreement; and (3) comport with 7 constitutional notions of due process. Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1014-16. 8 Plaintiff states that it is "unaware" of any international agreement which prohibit service

9 via email on the Defendants. The Court finds that at ths stage in the proceedings, the record 10 does not adequately demonstrate that service on Defendants via email is not prohibited by 11 international agreement. 12 13 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Alternate Service (ECF No.

14 9) is DENIED. 15 DATED: December 20, 2010 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-310cv1809 WQH BLM

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge