Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00813/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00813-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07cv813

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RESNICK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID SHEPARD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv813-L(CAB)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

LEAVE TO SERVE DEFENDANT

BRYAN ROBERTS BY

ALTERNATIVE MEANS

In this breach of contract, fraud and business tort action, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte

Application for Leave to Serve Defendant Bryan Roberts by Alternative Means (“Application”). 

Defendant Bryan Roberts (“Roberts”) apparently was at the pertinent time a director of

Defendant Sky Windpower Corporation (“SWP”), a California corporation, but resides in

Australia. After unsuccessful attempts to serve Roberts personally at his residence in Australia,

Plaintiffs request leave to serve him by email, or by a combination of email, regular mail, and

delivery to SWP. For the reasons which follow, the Application is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service upon individuals in a foreign

country. Rule 4(f)(3), upon which Plaintiffs rely, provides in pertinent part:

(f) Service Upon Individuals in a Foreign Country. Unless otherwise provided be

federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained

and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in a place

Case 3:07-cv-00813-L-CAB Document 14 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv813

not within any judicial district of the United States:

. . .

(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by

the court.

“As is obvious from its plain language, service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the

court; and (2) not prohibited by international agreement.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3), a

method of service of process must also comport with constitutional notions of due process. To

meet this requirement, the method of service crafted by the district court must be ‘reasonably

calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action

and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. at 1016, quoting Mullane v.

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

Plaintiffs’ Application is insufficient to meet these requirements in two respects, each of

which is by itself a sufficient basis to deny the Application. First, beyond a conclusory

statement that “Australia is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention” (Pls’ Mem. of P. & A. at

2), Plaintiffs do not indicate whether they inquired whether Australia may be a signatory to the

Hague Convention or any other relevant international agreement. The court therefore cannot

conclude that the alternative means Plaintiffs propose are not prohibited by an international

agreement. See Rio, 284 F.3d at 1015 n.4 (“A federal court would be prohibited from issuing a

Rule 4(f)(3) order in contravention of an international agreement, including the Hague

Convention referenced in Rule 4(f)(1).”).

Second, Plaintiffs’ arguments, intended to show that the proposed alternative means of

service comport with due process, are based primarily on the declaration of Albert J. Grenier

(“Grenier”). However, the declaration does not include admissible evidence on key points. 

Grenier declared he “believ[ed] that Bryan Roberts is aware of the . . . litigation . . ..” This

belief is based on three items: an email message to Roberts, a telephone message to Roberts and

communications between Roberts and Defendant David Shepard (“Shepard”). 

Grenier sent an email to Roberts at the address he had previously used to communicate

with him regarding SWP matters. He did not receive a response from Roberts, however, based

Case 3:07-cv-00813-L-CAB Document 14 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07cv813

on a return receipt, he was able to determine “the IP address and domain name of the computer

that opened the email” and when. Although Grenier was able to trace the computer to Lindfield,

Australia, he does not assert that the email was opened by Roberts. Grenier believes Lindfield is

the location of Roberts’ office at the Kuring-gai campus of the University of Technology of

Sidney; however, he does not provide any foundation for his belief. 

Grenier also left a message on the answering machine at Roberts’ residence, at the

telephone number he had previously used to communicate with Roberts regarding SWP

business. Grenier does not state when he left the message or whether he had received a return

call or any other indication that Roberts received his message. 

Last, Grenier’s belief that Roberts knows about this lawsuit it based in part on his

conversations with Shepard. Grenier states that Shepard told him Roberts had asked him to

remove his name as a director of SWP from the company’s website because of this lawsuit and

that Roberts had said he was very upset about the lawsuit. The problem with Grenier’s reliance

on Shepard’s statements about what Roberts had said is the hearsay nature of such statements. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

to resubmitting it with the appropriate evidence and legal argument regarding international

agreements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00813-L-CAB Document 14 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 3