Federal Trade Commission v. PCCare247 Inc. et al
Filing
100
OPINION & ORDER: The FTC's motion to serve defendants through alternative means is granted. The FTC is granted leave to serve the Summons and Complaint and other documents in these cases on the following defendants in the following manner as set forth herein. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending in these three cases. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/18/2013) (djc)
DOc: 'If" f
ELECTRO'> ICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________)(
DOC #:-----".-..-+-1--
DATE FILED:
Ub::::~~~~~;dU
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-v-
12 Civ. 7186 (PAE)
12 Civ. 7189 (PAE)
12 Civ. 7192 (PAE)
OPINION & ORDER
PECON SOFTWARE LTD, et. aI.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Plaintiff the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") moves for leave to effect service of
documents, including the Summons and Complaint, by alternative means on defendants in the
following three related cases: FTC v. Pecon Software Ltd., et ai., No. 12 Civ. 7186; FTC v.
PCCare 247, Inc., et. ai., No. 12 Civ. 7189; and FTCv. Marczak, et. al., No. 12 Civ. 7192. For
the reasons that follow, the FTC's motion is granted.
I.
Background
The factual background of these three related cases--and three other related cases which
are not the subject of this motion-is set forth in detail in two of this Court's prior opinions. See
No. 12 Civ. 7189, Dkt. 87 (the "PCCare Opinion"), available at 2013 WL 841037 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 7,2013); No. 12 Civ. 7186, Dkt. 29 (the "Pecon Opinion"), available at 2013 WL 4016272
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7,2013). The Court assumes familiarity with these opinions.
In the PCCare Opinion, the Court granted the FTC leave to effect service of documents
other than the Summons and Complaint by email and Facebook message on the following
defendants: Vikas Agrawal, Anuj Agrawal, Parmeshwar Agrawal, PCCare247 Solutions Pvt.
Ltd., and Connexxions IT Services Private Limited. See PCCare Opinion 12. In this motion, the
FTC seeks leave to serve these same defendants-save for Vikas Agrawal, who has already been
personally served, see Dkt. 69-with the Summons and Complaint by the same means.
In the Pecon Opinion, the Court granted the FTC leave to effect service of documents
including the Summons and Complaint by email on 18 defendants in five of these related cases.
See Pecon Opinion 18-19. However, the Court denied the FTC's request to serve two
defendants-Prateek Shah and Wahid Ali-because the FTC had not offered sufficient evidence
to demonstrate a high likelihood that service would reach those two defendants at the proposed
email addresses and Facebook accounts. Id. at 10-11, l3-l5. The Court specified that this
denial was without prejudice to the FTC's ability to submit additional evidence and renew its
motion for alternative service on Shah and Ali. The FTC has now done so.
II.
Discussion
This Court has already found that the means of service proposed here-email and
Facebook-are not prohibited by international agreement. See PCCare Opinion 5-7; Pecon
Opinion 7-8. The Court has also found that service by these means comports with due process
where the FTC can demonstrate a "high likelihood" that service at the proposed email address or
Facebook account would reach the defendant. See PCCare Opinion 8; Pecon Opinion 8-9. The
Court now considers whether the FTC has made such a showing here.
A.
PCCare Defendants
As noted, the Court's previous decision found that service of documents other than the
Summons and Complain by email and Facebook message was appropriate in this case as to the
following defendants: Vikas Agrawal; Anuj Agrawal; Parmeshwar Agrawal; PCCare247
Solutions Pvt. Ltd; and Connexxions IT Services Private Limited. See PCCare Opinion 12. The
FTC now requests leave to serve these defendants, save for Vikas Agrawal, at the same email
2
addresses and Facebook accounts listed in the Court's previous opinion. Compare 12 Civ. 7189,
Dkt. 97, at 6-7, with PCCare Opinion 12. Just as service of post-complaint documents was
appropriate, service with the Summons and Complaint is appropriate at the same email addresses
identified.
The FTC also seeks leave to serve Anuj Agrawal at an additional email address not
authorized in the Court's prior opinion: anujOue@yahoo.co,in. Anuj used this address to register
his Facebook account, and his former attorney has confirmed that he uses this account. See Dkt.
97 (Declaration of Sheryl Novick), Att. B, at 10, id. Att. H, at 43. Accordingly, the Court finds
that service at this additional email address comports with due process.
B.
Prateek Shah
The FTC proposes to serve Prateek Shah at seven emails addresses I and by message to
his Facebook account. See 12 Civ. 7186, Dkt. 31, at 3-6. Prateek is listed as a director of Pecon
Software Limited--one of the entities involved in the alleged scheme--on its corporate registry.
See Dkt. 31-1 (Declaration of Sheryl Novick ("Novick Shah Decl.")), Att. B, at 10. On his
Facebook page, he lists Pecon as his employer and Mahesh Shah, another Pecon director, as his
father. Id. Att. D, at 14. Prateek used one ofthese email addresses(sujoy@pecon.co.in) to set
up a merchant account for Pecon Services at Bank of America. See id., Att. A, at 6-8. That is
the same email addresses that Prateek's father, Mahesh, gave to the FTC as his contact
information. See Dkt. 31-3. The other six email addresses were obtained by the FTC pursuant to
investigative demands from Facebook. See Novick Shah Decl' Att. E, at 23. These email
addresses are each derivations ofPrateek's name, and the domain names are consistent with the
I These are: sujoy@pecon.co.in; prateek@pecon.co.in; pI Oprateeks@iimahdernet.in;
shahprateek@gatech.edu; prashah@nvidia.com; shahprateek317@facebook.com; and
shahprateek317@gmail.com.
3
employment information and schools listed on Prateek's Facebook account and in a news article
featuring him. See id. Att. D, at 14; id. Att. G, at 29. Accordingly, the Court finds a high
likelihood that Prateek would receive service at the proposed email addresses and by message to
his Facebook account.
C.
Wahid Ali
The FTC proposes to serve Wahid Ali at four email addresses 2 and by message to his
Facebook account. See 12 Civ. 7192, Dkt. 53, at 3-5. Ali used one of these addresses
(wwahid.ali@gmaiLcom) to register a Skype account and a PayPal account used in the alleged
scheme. See Dkt. 53-1 (Declaration of Sheryl Novick ("Novick Ali Decl."), Att. A, at 6; id. Att.
B, at 10. Ali used that same address to contact the FTC after receiving notice of this case. ld.
Att. I, at 34-35. Ali used two of the other addresses (wahidforull@yahoo.co.in and
wahid.78685@gmail.com) to register for a PayPal and Facebook accounts used in the alleged
scheme. ld. Att. B, at 10, 14; id. Att. C, at 18. Ali used the fourth email address
(virtualindia2012@gmail.com) to register for one of the websites used in the alleged scheme. ld.
Att. H, at 32. Finally, Ali's Facebook page lists Global Innovative Services-one of the entities
alleged to be involved in the scheme--as his employer. ld. Att. D, at 24. This matches Global
Innovative Services' website, which lists Ali as its CEO. ld. Att. F, at 28. And the email
addresses associated with Ali's Facebook account match the addresses identified above. ld. Att.
C, at 18. Accordingly, the Court finds a high likelihood that Ali would receive service at the
proposed email addresses and by message to his Facebook account.
These are: wwahid.ali@gmail.com; wahidforull@yahoo.co,in; wahid.78685@gmail.com; and
virtualindia2012@gmail.com.
2
4
CONCLUSION
The FTC's motion to serve defendants through alternative means is granted. The FTC is
granted leave to serve the Summons and Complaint and other documents in these cases on the
following defendants in the following manner.
1. Defendant Anuj Agrawal by message to his Facebook account and by email at
anuj .agrawal@iconnexxions.com, anuj .agrawal@pccare247.com, and
anuj Oue@yahoo.co.in.
2. Defendant Parmeshwar Agrawal by message to his Facebook account and by email at
parmeshwar@marbleindian.com.
3. Defendant PCCare247 Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through its directors, Vikas, Anuj, and
Parmeshwar Agrawal, at the email addresses and Facebook accounts listed above for
Anuj and Parmeshwar, and at the following addresses for Vikas:
kusalbag@hotmaiLcom and vikas.agrawal@pccare24 7.com.
4. Defendant Connexxions IT Services Private Limited through its directors, Vikas and
Anuj Agrawal, at the email addresses and Facebook accounts listed above.
5. Defendant Prateek Shah by message to his Facebook account and by email at
sujoy@pecon.co.in; prateek@pecon.co.in; pi Oprateeks@iimahdernetin;
shahprateek@gatech.edu; prashah@nvidia.com; shahprateek317@facebook.com; and
shahprateek317@gmail.com.
6. Defendant Wahid Ali by message to his Facebook account and by email at
wwahid.ali@gmail.com; wahidforul1@yahoo.co.in; wahid.78685@gmaiLcom; and
virtualindia2012@gmaiLcom.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending in these three cases.
5
SO ORDERED.
f~ A.
£tt
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
Dated: September 18, 2013
New York, New York
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?