Cloudclinic LLC v. Therapetic Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER Granting 9 Motion to Complete Service on Defendant Srauski Through Service by Email. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/25/2017. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CLOUDCLINIC LLC,

11
12
13

Case No.: 17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPLETE SERVICE ON
DEFENDANT STRAUSKI
THROUGH SERVICE BY EMAIL

Plaintiff,
v.
THERAPETIC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

(ECF No. 9)

14
15

Defendants.

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff CloudClinic LLC’s Motion for Permission to

18

Complete Any Remaining Service by Email on Defendant Richard Strauski, (“MTN,” ECF

19

No. 9). No opposition to the Motion has been filed.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff brought suit for cybersquatting, registered mark trademark infringement,

22

unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition against

23

Defendants TheraPetic Solutions, Inc., Richard Strauski, and Deirdre White. (ECF No. 1,

24

at 2.) Plaintiff brings the current Motion regarding service on Defendant Richard Strauski

25

(“Strauski”), who has a known email address and no known physical address. (MTN 2.)

26

Plaintiff states Defendant TheraPetic informed Plaintiff that Strauski now resides in New

27

York, but Plaintiff is unable to locate Strauski’s New York address. (MTN 3–4.) Plaintiff

28

states it has been provided with an address in Canada for Strauski’s parents and with an
1
17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

1

address in Washington D.C. for Defendant TheraPetic. (MTN 3; “Wagner Decl.,” ECF

2

No. 9-2, at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff states it has served the Complaint by mail at both of these

3

addresses. (Id.) Plaintiff also attempted personal service on Strauski at the Washington

4

D.C. address but was not successful. (See ECF No. 9-4.) Plaintiff alleges Strauski operates

5

websites on behalf of Defendant Therapetic and registered himself with the Internet

6

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) as the contact person at

7

TheraPetic for the company’s domain names. (Id. at 3.) Strauski’s email address,

8

[e-mail], is listed on all of the domain name registrations. (Id. at 4; see also

9

ECF No. 9-5.)

10

Plaintiff claims service by email is reasonably calculated to give notice of the lawsuit

11

to Strauski because Ken Gaughan, TheraPetic’s principal, informed Plaintiff he has been

12

in contact with Strauski by email in response to being served with the Complaint. (Id. at

13

5; Wagner Decl. at ¶ 6.) Further, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that when he emailed Defendant

14

Strauski, he received no return or rejection notices. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 6.)

15

LEGAL STANDARD

16

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), “an individual may be served in a

17

judicial district of the United States by . . . following state law for serving a summons in

18

an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is

19

located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).1 Under California law, a court

20

“may direct that summons be served in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give

21

actual notice to the party to be served and that proof of such service be made as prescribed

22

by the court.” Cal. Civil Code § 413.30. To comport with due process, the method of

23

service must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested

24

parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their

25
26
27
28

1

Although Plaintiff discusses the unsettled nature of Canadian law on the issue of service by mail in its
Motion (MTN 2), Plaintiff’s Motion and the attached Declaration of Ben Wagner indicate Strauski is
currently living in New York, not in Canada. Rule 4(e), which governs service of an individual living
domestically, therefore applies in this matter.
2
17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

1

objections.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002)

2

(quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).

3

ANALYSIS

4

Plaintiff argues the Court should grant its Motion for Electronic Service because

5

Plaintiff has acted diligently to notify Strauski of this case and because service through

6

email is reasonably calculated to provide notice to Strauski. (MTN 2.)

7

Courts have authorized service of process by email on domestic litigants.

In

8

Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC, the court authorized service by email on domestic

9

defendants. No. C-11-3619 YGR, 2102 WL 1038752, *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012). The

10

defendants were engaged in online-based businesses and “rel[ied] on email as a means of

11

communication.” Id. The plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to “locate and contact [the

12

defendants] by postal mail and telephone.” Id. Under these circumstances, email service

13

was “the best method for providing actual notice to [the defendants].” Id.

14

In Balsam v. Angeles Technology Inc., the court similarly authorized service by

15

email. No. C 06-04114 JF (HRL), 2007 WL 2070297, *4 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2007). There,

16

the plaintiff “attempted to serve [the defendants] through traditional methods.” Id. at *3.

17

When this was unsuccessful, plaintiff sought to serve the defendants through email

18

addresses that the defendants “provided to the domain name registrar and to . . . individuals

19

who sign[ed] up for the [defendants’] website’s services.” Id. The court held the

20

defendants “should . . . expect to be contacted at the addresses they provided to the domain

21

name registrar” and therefore email service was reasonably calculated to give actual notice.

22

Id.

23

The Court finds service by email is reasonably calculated to give Strauski notice of

24

the pending case.

25

registrations and should expect to be contacted through this email address. The Court

26

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and permits Plaintiff to use the email address

27

[e-mail] to serve process on Strauski.

Strauski provided his email address on all of his domain name

28
3
17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

1

Plaintiff also requests the Court extend the service deadline. (MTN 2.) Pursuant to

2

Rule 4(m), a defendant must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, but if

3

the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure to serve, the court must extend the time for

4

service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Good cause appearing, the Court

5

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff shall serve Strauski within 5 days of the date of this

6

Order.

7

CONCLUSION

8

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Complete Any Remaining

9

Service by Email on Defendant Richard Strauski. Plaintiff may use the email address

10

[e-mail] to serve process on Strauski. Accordingly, the hearing set for this

11

Motion on November 2, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. is VACATED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)