Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01293/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01293-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLOUDCLINIC LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERAPETIC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPLETE SERVICE ON 

DEFENDANT STRAUSKI 

THROUGH SERVICE BY EMAIL

(ECF No. 9)

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought suit for cybersquatting, registered mark trademark infringement, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

states it has been provided with an address in Canada for Strauski’s parents and with an

Case 3:17-cv-01293-JLS-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rstrauski@gmail.com, is listed on all of the domain name registrations. (Id. at 4; see also 

ECF No. 9-5.)

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

service 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 

 

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.

Case 3:17-cv-01293-JLS-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

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

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Id.

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

the pending case. Strauski provided his email address on all of his domain name 

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

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

rstrauski@gmail.com to serve process on Strauski.

Case 3:17-cv-01293-JLS-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-1293-JLS (NLS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order.

CONCLUSION

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

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

rstrauski@gmail.com to serve process on Strauski. Accordingly, the hearing set for this 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01293-JLS-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4