Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd.

Filing 55

ORDER granting 43 Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service of Process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission is permitted to service Mr. Laurent by email at [e-mail]. The Clerk of Court will serve Mr. Laurent with the Commissions 41 Amended Complaint by return-receipt mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 03/03/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
5

2:13–cv–993–RCJ–VCF

Plaintiff,
6

vs.

7

BANC DE BINARY, et al.,

ORDER

8

Defendants.

9
10

This matter involves the Securities and Exchange Commission’s civil enforcement action against

11

Banc De Binary (#411). Before the court is the Commission’s motion for alternative service of process

12

on Defendant Oren Shabat Laurent (#43). For the reasons stated below, the Commission’s motion is

13

granted.

14

BACKGROUND

15

Defendant Oren Shabat Laurent is an Israeli and American residing near in Ramat Gan, Israel.
16

(Pl.’s Mot. (#43) at 3:11). Laurent is the founder and chief executive officer of Defendant Banc de
17

Binary, a Cyprus-based corporation that is allegedly engaged in the offer and sale of securities to U.S.
18
19
20

investors. (Amend. Compl. (#41) at 3, 6–8). Banc de Binary, however, is not registered with
Commission. (Id.) This violates section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e. (Id. at 9). To date,

21

Laurent has refused to permit counsel to accept service of the Commission’s amended complaint on his

22

behalf. (Pl.’s Mot. (#43) at 1:7). As a result, the Commission moves to serve Laurent by international

23

mail under The Hague Convention and email. (See Pl.’s Mot. (#43) at 4:22, 6:7).

24
25

1

Parenthetical citations refer to the court’s docket.

1

LEGAL STANDARD

1
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service of an individual in a foreign country. Rule

3

4(f)(2) permits plaintiffs to move the Clerk of Court to serve defendants by return-receipt mail.

4

Additionally, Rule 4(f)(3) permits the court to allow the plaintiff to serve the defendant “means not

5

prohibited by international agreement.” This includes email. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,

6

284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that Rule 4(f) permits, inter alia, service by publication,

7

ordinary mail, mail to the defendant’s last known address, delivery to the defendant’s attorney, telex,

8

and, email).

9

The Ninth Circuit has held that service under Rule 4(f) is neither a “last resort” nor

10

“extraordinary relief.” Id. at 1015 (citation omitted). “It is merely one means among several which
11

enables service of process on an international defendant.” Id. The decision to allow alternative means of
12

service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is discretionary. Absolute Swine Insemination Co., Ltd v. Absolute
13
14
15
16

Swine Insemination Co., LLC, No. 2:12–cv–00606, 2012 WL 3536788, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012)
(citation omitted).
DISCUSSION

17

The Commission’s motion is granted. When deciding whether to permit service by email or

18

return-receipt mail, the court must first make a legal determination: whether service by email or return-

19

receipt mail is allowed by international agreement and not prohibited by the foreign country’s law.

20

See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f)(2); see Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 789, 804–805 (9th Cir. 2004) (identifying

21
22

these requirements). These requirements are satisfied here. It is undisputed that (1) The Hague
Convention permits service by international mail, (2) the United States and Israel are members to the

23

Hague Convention, and (3) Israeli law does not prohibit service by international mail. See Treeline Inv.
24

Partners, LP v. Koren, 07–cv–1964–cv–DLC, 2007 WL 1933860, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2007)
25

2

1
2

(discussing each of these elements in detail and citing Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 299–
300 (2d Cir. 2005) and Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 840 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also Facebook, Inc.

3

v. Banana Ads LLC No. 11–3619, 2012 WL 1038752, at *1 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2012) (granting

4

motion to serve foreign defendants by email); Prof’l Investigating & Consulting Agency Inc. v. Suzuki,

5

No. 11–cv–1025, 2014 WL 48260, at *2–3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2014) (holding that The Hague Service

6

Convention allows service by email); Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., 06–06572–JSW, 2007

7

WL 1140639, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2007) (permitting service on an Israeli defendant by email).

8
9

Second, the court must make a discretionary determination: whether permitting service of
process by email and return-receipt mail under The Hague Convention is necessitated by the facts and

10

circumstances and (2) reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the action and afford him an
11

opportunity to respond to the complaint. Rio Properties, Inc., 284 F.3d at 1016. These factors are
12

satisfied here.
13
14
15

The facts and circumstances necessitate court intervention allowing service by email and returnreceipt mail because Laurent refuses to permit counsel to accept service on his behalf. (Pl.’s Mot. (#43)

16

at 1:7). Service by email and return-receipt mail are reasonably calculated to appraise Laurent of the

17

action because the Commission has located Laurent’s place of residence in Israel and discovered his

18

email address, which Laurent regularly checks. (Id. at 7) (citation omitted). It light of the Ninth Circuit’s

19

conclusion that service under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a “last resort” nor “extraordinary relief,” the court

20

grants the Commission’s motion.

21
22

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that the Commission’s motion for alternative service of process (#43) is

23

GRANTED.
24
25

3

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission is permitted to service Mr. Laurent by email
at [e-mail].

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will serve Mr. Laurent with the

4

Commission’s amended complaint (#41) by return-receipt mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) at the following address: Mr. Oren Shabat Laurent, Shoham, 1, 52711, Ramat

6

Gan, Israel.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2014.

9
10
11

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4