Rosenthal et al v. Christiana Bank & Trust Company et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 29 MOTION for Leave to Serve Defendants Wesley William Robinson, WRFG Financial, LLC, WRFG Holdings, Inc. and WRFG Capital (USA) Via Electronic Mail filed by Jeffrey Rosenthal, Valerie Edith Rosenthal is GRANTED; 35 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants filed by Jeffrey Rosenthal, Valerie Edith Rosenthal is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/24/12. (ntl)

1
j

I
I

!

l

I
I

I

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VALERIE EDITH ROSENTHAL and
JEFFREY ROSENTHAL,
Plaintiffs,
C.A. No. 12-623-LPS

v.
CHRISTIANA BANK & TRUST COMPANY, as
the TRUSTEE of the VALERIE ROSENTHAL
IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUSTEE
2008 DATED 18m DAY OF JULY 2008,
CEDRIC STROTHER, LINDA HEIBERGER,
DEBORAH L. LUTES, CHERYL L.
FRIEDRICH, NATIONAL PENN
BANCSHARES, INC., WSFS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, WILMINGTON SAVINGS
FUND SOCIETY, FSB, WESLEY WILLIAM
ROBINSON, WRFG FINANCIAL, LLC, WRFG
HOLDINGS, INC., WRFG CAPITAL (USA),
LLC, ABC CORP., and XYZ LLC,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to serve Defendants Wesley William
Robinson, WRFG Financial, LLC, WRFG Holdings, Inc., and WRFG Capital (USA)
(collectively, the "WRFG Defendants") via email (D.I. 29), as well as Plaintiffs' Motion for
Extended Time to serve the WRFG Defendants (D.I. 35).
Service of process via email has been authorized by federal courts, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(f), when the circumstances indicate that traditional methods are inadequate and that
service via email would comport with Due Process. See In re Heckmann Corp. Sec. Litig., 2011

1

I

WL 5855333, at *3-5 (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2011) ("[S]ince service on [the defendant] via email is
reasonably calculated to reach him, it is not inconsistent with due process, and is an acceptable
means ofservice."); see also Rio Prop. Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F. 3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th
Cir. 2002) (holding that service via email was acceptable as it was reasonably calculated, under
the circumstances, to apprise defendant of pendency of action and afford defendant opportunity
to respond); MacLean-Fogg Co. v. Ningbo Fastlink Equip. Co., Ltd, 2008 WL 5100414, at *2
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2008) (authorizing service via email where plaintiff showed strong likelihood
that defendant would receive and respond to email); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Veles Ltd., 2007
WL 725412, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007) (authorizing service via email where plaintiff
showed that defendant conducted business through internet web pages and emailed with
customers).
Plaintiffs' brief shows that Plaintiffs made a good faith effort to serve the WRFG
Defendants at two different locations. (D.I. 29) Plaintiffs' brief also shows that the WRFG
Defendants may be reached via email. (See id. Ex. E) Serving the WRFG Defendants via email
will provide Defendants the opportunity to object and respond to the litigation, providing them
Due Process. See In re Heckmann, 2011 WL 5855333, at *4.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that "if the plaintiff shows good cause for
the failure [to serve a defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed], the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period." The same reasons that have led the Court
to conclude that service via email is appropriate also satisfy the Court that there is good cause to
extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

2

I

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs' motion to serve the WRFG Defendants via email (D.I. 29) is

GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiffs' motion for extended time to serve the WRFG Defendants (D.I. 35) is

GRANTED. Plaintiffs must serve the WRFG Defendants no later than October 31, 2012.

UNITED'sT ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

September 24, 2012

3