Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00451/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1 

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

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

HYDENTRA HLP INT. LIMITED, a 

foreign corporation, d/b/a METART 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PORN69.ORG; et al., 

Defendants. 

No.: CV15-00451-PHX DGC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE 

FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 

 

Plaintiff seeks leave to serve Defendant Henry Jay by alternative means 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 4(e)(1) and Defendant Nguyen Le Trang by alternative 

means pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3). Doc. 21. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1) authorizes service of process in a manner following state law 

for serving a summons in a court where service is made. Plaintiff has established that 

Defendant Jay claims to reside in the State of Maine. Maine law permits electronic 

service when the moving party has demonstrated due diligence in attempting to obtain 

personal service of process, the physical location of the person to be served cannot 

reasonably be ascertained, and the requested method and manner of service is reasonably 

calculated to provide actual notice of the pendency of the action. Me.R.Civ.P. 4.

Plaintiff has attempted service at all available physical addresses, to no avail. 

Case 2:15-cv-00451-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

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

Plaintiff has investigated Defendant Jay’s physical whereabouts and has been unable to 

locate further physical addresses for Defendant Jay, as Defendant Jay has provided a fake 

physical address. Plaintiff has obtained a working email address: henryjjay@gmail.com, 

which is linked to Defendant Jay and from which Defendant Jay has communicated with 

Plaintiff. The Court finds that service of Defendant Jay through the email address 

henryjjay@gmail.com is appropriate and comports with due process. 

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. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) reads, in pertinent part: 

(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal 

law provides otherwise, an individual-other than a minor, an 

incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filedmay be served at a place not within any judicial district of the 

United States: 

(1) by an internationally agreed means of service that is 

reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those 

authorized by the Hague Convention on Service Abroad 

of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents; 

(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an 

international agreement allows but does no specify other 

means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give 

notice: 

(A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for 

service in that country in an action in its courts of 

general jurisdiction; 

(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a 

letter rogatory or letter of request; or 

(C) unless prohibited by the foreign county’s law, by; 

(i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00451-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 5
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

complaint to the individual personally; or 

(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk 

addresses and sends to the individual 

personally; or 

(3) by other means not prohibited by international 

agreement, as the court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting service under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(f)(3), which 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). 

In reviewing Rule 4(f)(3), the Ninth Circuit found that “[n]o other 

limitations are evident from the text.” Id. Rule 4(f) does not “create a hierarchy of 

preferred methods of service of process” and, “court -directed service under Rule 

4(f)(3) is as favored as service available under Rule 4(f)(1) or 4(f)(2).” Id., 284 

F.3d at 1015. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a method of service must comport with 

constitutional notions of due process and must not violate any international 

agreement. Id., 284 F.3d at 1015, 1016. A method of service comports with due 

process if it is “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, 1017 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover 

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

“[T]rial courts have authorized a wide variety of alternative methods of service 

including publication, ordinary mail, mail to the defendant’s last known address, 

delivery to the defendant’s attorney, telex, and most recently, email.” Id. at 1016. 

However, in effectuating service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f) (3), a plaintiff 

must obtain prior court approval for the alternative method of service. Brockmeyer v. 

May, 383 F.3d 798, 806 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 2:15-cv-00451-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

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

Plaintiff brings a copyright infringement action against Defendant Nguyen Le 

Trang seeking redress for Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s copyrighted 

works. In an attempt to determine the location of the owners and operators of the 

web sites, Plaintiff conducted early discovery, serving subpoenas on known vendors 

providing services for the web sites. Plaintiff discovered that these vendor accounts 

are in the name of Nguyen Le Trang, with the following registered email: 

henryjjay@gmail.com. The address information for Nguyen Le Trang was limited 

to Vietnam. Plaintiff investigated the address provided to the vendor for Nguyen Le 

Trang and determined that the address is not connected to Nguyen Le Trang. Thus, 

Plaintiff has an email address for Nguyen Le Trang that was provided to the Vendor, 

but has not obtained a valid physical address despite diligent efforts to find one. 

In the absence of a valid address, Plaintiff cannot personally serve 

Defendant in Vietnam. In view of the difficulties surrounding personal service 

without the ability to determine an actual physical address, Plaintiff seeks an order 

permitting service on Defendant Trang by email and has obtained an email address 

for her. Plaintiff asserts that service through email comports with due process 

because it is reasonably calculated to inform Defendant of the impending action, and 

under the circumstances here, it is the only means of providing notice to Defendant. 

In Rio Properties, the Ninth Circuit found that email was “the method most 

likely to reach” a defendant who operated a website from Costa Rica with no 

discoverable street address in either the United States or Costa Rica, and who only 

provided an email address as a contact. 284 F.3d at 1017-118. Like Rio Properties, 

Plaintiff argues Defendant is located in Vietnam and has a business that is conducted 

through the internet. Furthermore, through its investigation, Plaintiff has been unable 

to determine a physical address for Defendant and is, thus, unable to serve 

Defendant by any other means. 

Case 2:15-cv-00451-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

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

Plaintiff also contends there is no authority that expressly provides or implies 

that email service is prohibited by international agreement, or otherwise, in 

Vietnam. Additionally, the decision in Rio Properties and other cases from 

district courts nationwide support the proposition that service by email is not 

generally prohibited by international agreement. Bullex v. Yoo, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 35628 (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2011) (finding email service appropriate upon 

defendant of unknown location in South Korea); Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd v. 

Wikileaks, 2008 WL 413737, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (finding plaintiff had 

successfully demonstrated that service through email was not prohibited by an 

international agreement); Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., 2007 1140639, 

at 2 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (concluding that there was no showing that service by email was 

prohibited by an international agreement). 

The Court agrees and finds that service of Defendant Nguyen Le Trang 

through email is appropriate and comports with due process. Plaintiff has 

demonstrated that it has been unable to obtain a physical address for Defendant 

Nguyen Le Trang. Additionally, Plaintiff has shown that because Defendant 

conducts business through the internet, service through email will give Defendant 

sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. The Court also finds that issuing an 

order allowing service via email would not be prohibited by international 

agreement. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Alternate Service on 

Defendants Henry Jay and Nguyen Le Trang (Doc. 21) is granted. These 

Defendants may be served at henryjjay@gmail.com. Service is valid upon 

transmission of an email to the Defendants. 

Dated this 7th day of December, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00451-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/07/15 Page 5 of 5