Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00824/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00824-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD and

JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO.

LTD,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WIKILEAKS, an entity of unknown form;

WIKILEAKS.ORG, an entity of unknown

form; DYNADOT, LLC, a California limited

liability corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-00824 JSW

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER RE

SERVICE

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ ex parte

application for an order deeming service effected, or in the alternative, permitting alternative

methods of service of summons and complaint, or additional time for pre-service discovery. 

Having considered Plaintiffs’ pleadings, the lack of opposition, relevant legal authority, and the

record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. 

The Court finds the application well-taken and issues this Order GRANTING the request for

alternative service expeditiously due to the urgency of the pending matter.

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2008, Plaintiffs Bank Julius Baer & Co., LTD and Julius Baer Bank and

Trust Co, Ltd. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action alleging unlawful and unfair business practices in

violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, declaratory relief, 

Case 3:08-cv-00824-JSW Document 36 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, conversion, and

injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants WikiLeaks, Wikileaks.org and Dynadot, LLC

have unlawfully and wrongfully published confidential, as well as forged, bank documents

belonging to Plaintiffs on the website Wikileaks.org. Plaintiffs allege that such publication 

violates consumer banking and privacy protection law, under both foreign and American law. 

Also, on February 8, 2008, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for temporary

restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs initiated

service of the summons and complaint, as well as all associated TRO papers, on Defendants by

priority mail return receipt on the WikiLeak Defendants’ only available and self-listed address,

a post office box for contact through its private anonymous domain “who-is” registration

service and agent for contact as well as by fax notice and personal service to WikiLeaks

Defendants’ ostensible counsel, Julie Turner. (Declaration of Evan N. Spiegel (“Spiegel

Decl.”), ¶¶ 7-20.) ) There is also evidence in the record that WikiLeaks, after Plaintiffs’

attempts at service at its registered post office box address, has removed the local domain listing

to include foreign defendants purportedly located in Nairobi, Kenya. (Id., ¶ 13, Ex. C.) 

Plaintiffs have properly effectuated service on Defendant Dynadot, LLC whose service is not at

issue here. 

ANALYSIS

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign

business entity in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for individuals.” Rio Properties, Inc. v.

Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Rule 4(f), in turn, sets forth

the manner in which a plaintiff may effect service on an individual not within any judicial

district of the United States. Rule 4(f)(3) provides that service may be effected “by other means

not prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court.” 

Under the plain language of Rule 4(f)(3), a plaintiff must show that the “other means” is

not prohibited by international agreement and must obtain a court order to effectuate service in

the desired fashion. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014; Nanya Techn. Corp. v. Fujitsu Ltd.,

2007 WL 296087, *5 (D. Guam. Jan. 26, 2007) (granting motion to effect service by email and

Case 3:08-cv-00824-JSW Document 36 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

international mail on Japanese defendant). In addition, the method of service authorized by the

Court “must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d

at 1016. In Rio Properties, the Ninth Circuit also stated that as long as service under Rule

4(f)(3) is “court-directed and not prohibited by an international agreement, service of process

ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign

country.” Id. at 1014.

Although, the Ninth Circuit also has stated a plaintiff must obtain court approval before

attempting to effect service Rule 4(f)(3) before service will be considered effective, a plaintiff is

not first required to attempt service under Rule 4(f)(1) or Rule 4(f)(2). See Brockmeyer v. May,

383 F.3d 798, 806 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding plaintiff did not effect service properly where they

failed to obtain court approval prior to serving via mail); Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016.

In this case, the Court concludes that the circumstances warrant alternative service. 

Plaintiffs have presented evidence that physical addresses for the WikiLeaks Defendants cannot

be effectively located or that such defendants, through their purported agents, have refused to

accept service. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that there are email accounts listed for

defendants, which would serve the purposes of ensuring the defendants receive adequate notice

of this action and an opportunity to be heard. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016-17 (finding

that service via electronic mail was “method most likely to reach” defendant and concluding

district court did not abuse discretion in authorizing service via email); see also Int’l Controls

Corp. v. Vesco, 593 F.2d 166, 176-78 (2d Cir. 1979) (approving service my mail to last known

address).

The Court further concludes that, as yet, there is no showing that service via email is

prohibited by an international agreement. In Rio Properties, the Ninth Circuit stated that “as

long as court-directed and not prohibited by an international agreement, service of process

ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign

country.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application re

service is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to effectuate service via email without requirement

of return receipt. 

Case 3:08-cv-00824-JSW Document 36 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The record includes an ex parte letter from attorney Julie Turner dated February 12,

2008 which attaches a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel in which Turner indicates that she

understands “indirectly, that Wikileaks is seeking counsel.” (Docket no. 26 at 8.) Also,

there is evidence that, following Plaintiffs’ attempts at service, the WikiLeaks Defendants

have removed the local domain listing to include foreign defendants purportedly located in

Nairobi, Kenya. (Spiegel Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. C.) It is therefore clear from the record before this

Court that the WikiLeaks Defendants are aware of the pending matter.

4

Although the Court does not find that the service already effectuated by Plaintiffs was

improper, in an abundance of caution and considering that the WikiLeaks Defendants may be

foreign parties, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to re-serve the amended complaint and summons

and all TRO-related papers, including this Order, on the WikiLeaks Defendants at their listed

email addresses by no later than 3:00 p.m., today, February 13, 2008. Plaintiffs shall serve by

email any further filings in this matter immediately upon their filing or any further orders of this

Court immediately upon their receipt. Because it is clear from the record before the Court that

the WikiLeaks Defendants have actual knowledge of the pendency of the application for

temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction,1 the hearing will

remain set for Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS all parties (or

their legal representatives) to be present at the hearing, including but not limited to, Julie

Turner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00824-JSW Document 36 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 4