Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00307/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

ORDER (No. 3:16-cv-00307-LB)

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

CHANEL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERESA CHARLES,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00307-LB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

CHANEL, INC.'S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER 

AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

Re: ECF No. 11

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff Chanel, Inc. sued the defendant Teresa Charles, doing business as Croquis Decor,

for trademark infringement. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.1) Chanel has tried unsuccessfully to serve 

Ms. Charles and now asks to serve her by email at croquisdecor@gmail.com. (Application, ECF 

No. 11.) The court finds the matter suitable for determination without oral argument under Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). The court grants Chanel’s application because service to this email address is 

reasonably calculated to give Ms. Charles notice of the action.

STATEMENT

On January 19, 2016, Chanel filed the complaint. (Complaint.) The summons issued on 

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of documents.

Case 3:16-cv-00307-CRB Document 14 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 4
ORDER (No. 3:16-cv-00307-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

January 21, 2016. (Summons, ECF No. 8.) Before filing the lawsuit, Chanel confirmed Ms. 

Charles’s apparent physical address at 1400 Carpentier St., Apt. 101, San Leandro, CA 94577. 

(Decl. of Barbara Solomon, ECF No. 11-1, at 2, ¶ 3.) That address was the return address on a box 

containing an infringing product that Ms. Charles shipped on December 14, 2015. (Id. at ¶ 3, Ex. 

A.) Chanel sent five separate demand letters to Ms. Charles. (Id. at 3, ¶ 6.) She ignored all of 

them. (Id.) 

Chanel tried unsuccessfully to serve process on Ms. Charles. On four occasions between 

January 26, 2016 and January 29, 2016, Robert Eastman, a private investigator, attempted to serve 

Ms. Charles at the Carpentier address. (Decl. of Robert Eastman, ECF No. 11-2.) In each case, he 

knocked on the door, received no response, and heard no sounds to indicate someone was inside. 

(Id.) He also twice tried the apartment’s call box system but received a message that the number 

for the apartment was no longer in service. (Id. at 2, ¶¶ 2, 3.) The apartment manager told Mr. 

Eastman that the property management company unsuccessfully tried to serve Ms. Charles in 

connection with a lawsuit for outstanding property association fees. (Id. at 2-3, ¶ 4.) Another 

private investigator called Ms. Charles’s cellphone three times during the service attempts, on 

each occasion receiving no answer. (Id.at 2-3, ¶¶ 2, 5-6.)

A maintenance worker informed Mr. Eastman that Ms. Charles “generally is not seen at the 

apartment more than once every several weeks.” (Id.) The worker also told Mr. Eastman that Ms. 

Charles’s parking spot was number 64 and that she drives a blue Honda. (Id. at 3, ¶ 5.) The car 

was not there on January 28 during the service attempt. (Id.) On January 29, 2016, someone at the 

complex called Mr. Eastman and said that the car was there. (Id. at ¶ 6.) The car was in spot 

number 64 when he arrived. (Id.) He rang the doorbell and no one answered. (Id.) The other 

private investigator called Ms. Charles’s cell phone and no one answered. (Id.) It appears that Ms. 

Charles does not reside there on a regular basis and the investigator is not aware of anyone else 

who lives there. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

Ms. Charles monitors and maintains the email address croquisdecor@gmail.com. (Solomon 

Decl. at 3, ¶ 10.) She lists it as her contact email on her selling platform atShopify.com. (Id.) 

“Emails were sent to this address on January 26, 2016. The emails were opened, read and 

Case 3:16-cv-00307-CRB Document 14 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 4
ORDER (No. 3:16-cv-00307-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

responded to.” (Id.)

On February 5, 2016, Chanel filed this ex parte application seeking authorization to serve Ms. 

Charles at the email address croquisdecor@gmail.com.

ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), a plaintiff may serve an individual defendant 

under any method permitted by the law of the state in which the district court is located or in 

which service is affected. California law allows for five basic methods of service: 1) personal 

delivery to the party, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10; 2) delivery to someone else at the party’s 

usual residence or place of business with mailing after (known as “substitute service”), see id. § 

415.20; 3) service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt, see id. § 415.30; 4) service on persons 

outside the state by certified or registered mail with a return receipt requested, see id. § 415.40; 

and 5) service by publication, see id. § 415.50. Here, the plaintiff tried to serve Ms. Charles 

several times. The issue now is whether substitute service by email is appropriate.

California Code of Civil § 413.30 provides that a court “may direct that summons be served in 

a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party served.” 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 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)).

Courts have authorized service of process by email on domestic litigants in similar cases. For 

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

domestic defendants. 2102 WL 1038752, *3 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2012). The defendants were 

engaged in online-based businesses and “rel[ied] on email as a means of communication.” Id.

Facebook 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. Aneles Technology, Inc., the court similarly authorized service by email. 2007 

Case 3:16-cv-00307-CRB Document 14 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 4
ORDER (No. 3:16-cv-00307-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

WL 2070297, *4 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2007). In that case, the plaintiff unsuccessfully “attempted to 

serve [the defendants] through traditional methods.” Id. at 3. As a result, the 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 

defendants “should . . . expect to be contacted” at these addresses and therefore email service was 

reasonably calculated to give actual notice. Id.

As in Facebook and Balsam, service by email is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to 

Ms. Charles. Ms. Charles provides croquisdecor@gmail.com on her Shopify.com selling platform

and should expect to be contacted through this email address. Moreover, emails sent to the address 

were opened, read, and responded to. This indicates that the email address is functional and that 

someone, presumably Ms. Charles as the owner of Croquis Decor, reads and responds to emails 

sent to this address.

Chanel’s prior attempts to serve Ms. Charles also demonstrate that service by more traditional 

means is unlikely to be effective. Chanel attempted personal service through a private investigator 

that Ms. Charles used as her return shipping address as early as December 2010. It sent her letters 

that she apparently ignored. It tried calling her on her cell phone during service and she did not 

answer (even on the occasion that her car was in her parking spot.) (Eastman Decl. at 3, ¶ 6.) 

Moreover, it does not appear that Ms. Charles is at the business address regularly. Given Ms. 

Charles’s use of her email croquisdecor@gmail.com, the court concludes that service by email to 

this address is both reasonably calculated to give actual notice and “the method of service most 

likely to reach [Ms. Charles].” See Rio Properties, Inc., 284 F.3d at 1017.

CONCLUSION

The court grants Chanel’s application for alternative service of process by email. Chanel may 

use the email address croquisdecor@gmail.com to serve process on Ms. Charles.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00307-CRB Document 14 Filed 02/19/16 Page 4 of 4