Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01494/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01494-0/pdf.json

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

Hydentra HLP INT. Limited, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Sagan Limited, MXN Limited, Netmedia 

Services Incorporated, and David Koonar, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-01494-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs Hydentra HLP INT. Limited and Hydentra, L.P. HLP General Partner, 

Inc. (“Hydentra” or “Plaintiffs”) filed an ex parte motion for alternative service on 

Defendants Sagan Limited, MXN Limited (now known as “Cyberweb”), Netmedia 

Services, Inc., and David Koonar. Doc. 12. Defendants responded while specifically 

reserving their right to object to personal jurisdiction once properly served. Doc. 15 at 2. 

Plaintiffs replied. Doc. 18. No party has requested oral argument. The Court will grant 

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to conduct alternative service. 

II. Legal Standard. 

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. Rule 4(f) 

provides three methods by which a plaintiff may serve an international defendant: 

(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; 

Case 2:16-cv-01494-DGC Document 28 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

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

agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice: 

* * * 

(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the 

court orders. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)-(3). 

Service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court and (2) not prohibited 

by international agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). “No other limitations are evident 

from the text [of Rule 4(f)(3)]. In fact, as long as court-directed and not prohibited by an 

international agreement, service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in 

contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l 

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is 

neither a “last resort” nor “extraordinary relief,” but “is merely one means among several 

which enables service of process on an international defendant.” Id. 

 To pass constitutional muster, a 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 objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank 

& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Applying this construction of Rule 4(f)(3) and 

the standard articulated in Mullane, courts have authorized a wide variety of alternative 

methods of service. See SEC v. Tome, 833 F.2d 1086, 1094 (2d Cir. 1987) (service of 

process by publication); Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 593 F.2d 166, 176-78 (2d Cir. 

1979) (service by mail to last known address); New Eng. Merchs. Nat’l Bank v. Iran 

Power Generation & Transmission Co., 495 F. Supp. 73, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (service by 

telex for Iranian defendants); Levin v. Ruby Trading Corp., 248 F. Supp. 537, 541-44 

(S.D.N.Y. 1965) (service by ordinary mail); Forum Fin. Group, LLC v. President & 

Fellows of Harvard Coll., 199 F.R.D. 22, 23-24 (D. Me. 2001) (service on defendant’s 

attorney); In re Int’l Telemedia Assoc., 245 B.R. 713, 719-20 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000) 

(service by email). 

Case 2:16-cv-01494-DGC Document 28 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

III. Analysis. 

 Plaintiffs request that the Court permit them to serve Defendants by alternative 

means pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3). Doc. 12 at 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are a 

group of inter-related business entities with actual notice of this lawsuit. Id. In response, 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should be required “to first attempt service on the 

Defendants through the Hague Convention.” Doc. 15 at 4. Plaintiffs aver that “Service 

of Process has been sent through the Hague, [but] service has not yet been successful” 

(Doc. 12 at 2), and, “due to the length of time to serve through the Hague, service could 

continue unnecessary delay” (Doc. 18 at 4). 

 Plaintiffs argue that they seek alternative service “[b]ased on experience with the 

Defendants [and] their purposeful evading of service,” which has already resulted in this 

Court granting leave for alternative service in another case involving the same 

Defendants as parties and the same lawyer as plaintiff’s counsel. See AMA Multimedia, 

LLC v. Sagan, Ltd., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-1269-PHX-DGC, Dkts. 22, 23, 26, 35. In that 

case, the Court granted leave for alternative service on Defendant Koonar, where a 

qualified process server appeared at his business location four times only to be refused 

entry. Id. Likewise, the Court granted leave for alternative service on Defendant 

Cyberweb/MXN, LTD. after service through the Hague Convention failed. Id. at 

Dkt. 54. Plaintiffs contend that “Defendants remain unchanged. . . . [and] it is safe to 

anticipate that process servers will again be refused entrance to the building.” Doc. 18 at 

3-4. 

 The Court will permit alternative service. Defendants clearly know of this action 

as shown by their retention of counsel and their filing of an objection to Plaintiffs’ 

motion. Defendants have sought to evade service in the past. See AMA Multimedia, LLC 

v. Sagan, Ltd., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-1269-PHX-DGC, Dkts. 22, 23, 26, 35. Moreover, as 

Plaintiffs note, Defendants have even engaged in settlement talks with Plaintiffs on this 

case. Permitting alternative service will save time and impose no disadvantage to 

Defendants. 

Case 2:16-cv-01494-DGC Document 28 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

27 

28 

 The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing under 

Rule 4(f)(3) and Mullane to justify alternative service. Allowing Plaintiffs to serve 

Defendants by email clearly will apprise Defendants of the pendency of this action and 

afford them an opportunity to appear and defend. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. Plaintiffs 

may complete service by sending the pleadings to Defendants’ counsel by email within 

ten days of this order.1

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service (Doc. 12) is granted. 

2. Defendants’ motion to file a sur-reply (Doc. 19) is granted. The Clerk 

shall accept for filing the sur-reply lodged on the Court’s docket as 

Doc. 20. 

 3. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Doc. 21) is denied. 

 Dated this 7th day of February, 2017. 

 

1

 Defendants argue that allowing alternative service on their counsel “is not 

permitted in the Countries where the Defendants are located and [is] not permitted under the Hague Convention.” Doc. 19-1 at 2. As already noted, “service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” 

Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014. But that does not appear necessary in this case. Ontario Civil Rule of Procedure 16.06(2) states that “[i]f parties do not consent to the service of a document by e-mail, the court may, on motion, make an order directing that the document be served by e-mail, on such terms as are just.” O. Reg. 170/14, s. 6. Barbados Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5.14 (1) states that “[t]he court may direct that a claim form may be served by a method specified in the court’s order.” Available at 

http://www.barbadoslawcourts.gov.bb/supreme-court-civil-procedure-rules. Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure Rule 35 states that service on an agent of the defendant is sufficient. In this case, the Court will direct service on Defendants’ attorney as their 

agent. 

Case 2:16-cv-01494-DGC Document 28 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 4