Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03383/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03383-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fornix Holdings LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Unknown Party, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-03383-PHX-KML

ORDER 

Plaintiff Fornix Holdings LLC owns the copyrights on hundreds of works it licenses 

to plaintiff CP Productions. In November 2024, plaintiffs filed their initial complaint 

asserting copyright-related claims against the then-unknown defendants operating the 

website Erome.com. (Doc. 1.) “Erome.com is a hosting or tube site, allowing individuals 

to ‘upload, store, and share’ videos and images, provided it [sic] complies with the 

guidelines set out on Erome’s website.” (Doc. 9 at 7.) According to plaintiffs, visitors to 

Erome have uploaded “infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ works for free distribution and 

downloads.” (Doc. 9 at 8.) 

Approximately one month after filing their initial complaint, plaintiffs filed an 

amended complaint naming two defendants: Gregory Zimmer and Visteo. The amended 

complaint alleges Zimmer resides in Nice, France, where he “operates and manages” 

Erome.com. (Doc. 9 at 3.) Visteo is described as a limited liability company located in 

Nice, France, that is managed by Zimmer. Visteo “helps operate” Erome.com (Doc. 9 at 

3.) By operating the website, both Zimmer and Visteo allegedly “conduct, enable, and 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 16 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 3
- 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

27

28

encourage unauthorized copying and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works.” (Doc. 9 at 9.)

Plaintiffs now seek permission to complete alternative service on both defendants. 

Plaintiffs propose serving defendants via email and FedEx, using email addresses and a 

physical address obtained from third-party service providers. (Docs. 12 at 4; 12-1 at 2.)

“Rule 4(f)(3) permits service in a place not within any judicial district of the United 

States ‘by . . . means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the 

court.’” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Service of process under this rule “is neither a ‘last resort’ nor ‘extraordinary relief’” but 

“merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international 

defendant.”1Id. at 1015. A district court may authorize this form of alternative service if 

the plaintiffs “demonstrate that the facts and circumstances . . . necessitate[]” such relief. 

Id. at 1016.

The United States and France are both parties to the Hague Service Convention. 

Viral DRM LLC v. Jardin, No. 24-CV-06854-BLF, 2024 WL 4894854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 25, 2024). The Convention “requires each state to establish a central authority to 

receive requests for service of documents from other countries.” Water Splash, Inc. v. 

Menon, 581 U.S. 271, 275 (2017). But Article 10 of the Convention establishes other 

methods of service that can be used unless the receiving state objects. Id. at 276. One such 

method under Article 10 is service “by postal channels.” Id. at 275. Service by “private 

couriers, such as FedEx, come[s] within the meaning of ‘postal channels’ under the Hague 

Convention.” Willamette Green Innovation Ctr., LLC v. Quartis Cap. Partners, No. 13-

CV-00848-JCS, 2014 WL 5281039, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 13-CV-00848-WHO, 2014 WL 5260921 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

1 Some courts have noted Rio Properties should be limited to situations where the 

international service will occur in a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 

or where a signatory to the Hague Convention has not objected to particular types of 

service. See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. 9 Xiu Network (Shenzhen) Tech. Co., 480 F. Supp. 3d 

977, 986 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“Reading 4(f)(3) as permitting alternative means of service 

only when an exception to the Convention applies or when the Convention isn’t implicated 

(e.g., because the defendant is based in a country that isn’t a signatory to the Convention) 

doesn’t conflict with Rio.”). Because service by FedEx is permitted in this case, the court 

need not resolve the reach of Rio Properties.

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 16 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 3
- 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

10, 2014). France has not objected to Article 10, meaning it is permissible to serve 

individuals or entities in France by FedEx.

Courts disagree on whether email should be treated as a “postal channel” for 

purposes of the Hague Convention. See Kiwijet, LLC v. Xiamen Hayonex Int’l Logistics 

Co., No. 2:21-CV-07512-JVS (GJSX), 2023 WL 8896877, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2023) 

(citing cases). Because service by FedEx is permissible, there is no need to determine 

whether service by email would also be permitted. Plaintiffs must complete service via 

FedEx but, in an abundance of caution, plaintiffs must also send notice to the email 

addresses associated with Erome.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall serve the 

Summons and Complaint in this action on defendants via FedEx at 2T Rue Spitalieri, Nice, 

06000 France. Plaintiffs shall also send copies of the Summons and Complaint to 

gregzprod@gmail.com, contact@visteo.com, and contact@erome.com. Plaintiffs shall file 

proof of service on the docket once the above are completed.

Dated this 13th day of January, 2025.

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 16 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3