Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03404/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03404-0/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUSTIN JOHNSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03404-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS VIA

ALTERNATIVE MEANS AND TO 

EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE

Plaintiff Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) brings this action against Defendants for 

allegedly providing bot services that artificially inflate broadcaster popularity statistics in the 

gaming community, in an attempt to qualify for compensation through Twitch’s program. Compl. 

¶¶ 1-2, ECF 1. Twitch has served one but not the remaining defendants. Before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendants Alex Renfrow, Erik Bouchouev, Katherine Anjomi, and 

Michael Anjomi via alternative means at their email addresses. Mot., ECF 29. Twitch also seeks 

a 120-day extension of time to serve all the unserved defendants. For reasons stated below, the 

Court GRANTS Twitch’s motion.

I. DEFENDANTS ALEX RENFROW, KATHERINE ANJOMI, AND MICHAEL 

ANJOMI

Based on the exhibits and declarations attached to Twitch’s motion, Twitch has been 

unsuccessful in its numerous attempts to locate and personally serve Defendants at issue in this 

motion. For example, for Defendant Renfrow, Twitch reviewed the hosting history of internet 

domains registered to him and emailed him at numerous email addresses. Mot. 2-3. Twitch also 

sent the complaint and summons via FTP, and received a confirmation that the FTP notifications 

were viewed. Id. at 3; Exs. N-P, AA, BB. Twitch further sent an investigator to locate Defendant 

Case 5:16-cv-03404-BLF Document 33 Filed 01/19/17 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Renfrow, who made multiple inquiries as to his whereabouts in California, to no avail. Id. at 4. 

As for the Anjomis, Twitch performed the same review and engaged private investigators to 

physically locate them. Id. at 2-3; 5. Twitch obtained confirmation that the Anjomis had 

downloaded the files via FTP. Exs. CC, DD. Twitch also received a letter from Fred A. Fenster, 

stating that his firm had “been retained by Michael and Katherine Anjomi . . . to represent them in 

connection with the above-entitled matter.” Klein Decl. ¶ 18; Ex. HH. However, Mr. Fenster 

represented that he is not authorized to accept service on the Anjomis’ behalf. Mot. 5; Klein Decl. 

¶ 18.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides the applicable authority for serving an 

individual within a judicial district of the United States:

Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual – other than a 

minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been 

filed – may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:

(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought 

in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court 

is located or where service is made . . . . 

To that end, Section 413.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states (emphasis 

added):

Where no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the 

service of summons, the court in which the action is pending may 

direct that summons be served in a manner which is reasonably 

calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served and that 

proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.

In certain circumstances, service by e-mail is permitted under Rule 4(e)(1) and Section 

413.30. For example, in United Health Services, Inc. v. Meyer, a plaintiff offered evidence that it 

tried to serve the defendant in a number of ways, including having a process server find the 

defendant at her address of record as well as her home address, retaining a private investigator to 

locate and serve the defendant, mailing a copy of the summons and complaint with a notice of 

acknowledgment of receipt for the defendant to return, and e-mailing the defendant about the 

pending action on multiple occasions. None of these attempts were fruitful. No. 12-6197, 2013 

WL 843698, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013). The Court in Meyer thus granted the plaintiff’s 

motion to serve the defendant by e-mail, in light of other evidence that the defendant had used her 

Case 5:16-cv-03404-BLF Document 33 Filed 01/19/17 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

e-mail address to send thirty-five messages to the plaintiff, including communications concerning 

their litigation. Id. at *2.

Likewise in Aevoe Corporation v. Pace, e-mail service was allowed where the plaintiff had 

made “reasonable” attempts to serve the defendant. No.11-3215, 2011 WL 3904133, at *2 (N.D.

Cal. Sept. 6, 2011). These attempts included the plaintiff calling the defendant’s phone numbers, 

e-mailing the defendant, mailing the complaint to the defendant’s known addresses, attempting to 

personally serve the defendant, and retaining a private investigator to track the defendant down.

Id.

Based on the showing made by Twitch, the Court finds that Twitch has made substantial

efforts like the plaintiffs in Meyer and Aevoe, in an attempt to personally serve Defendants 

Renfrow, Katherine Anjomi, and Michael Anjomi. Moreover, like the cases discussed above, the 

Court finds that in these circumstances, service by e-mail would be “reasonably calculated to give 

actual notice” to the defendants. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30. This is in light of Twitch’s 

multiple emails that were successfully delivered to Defendants’ email addresses, as well as the 

confirmation received by Twitch that the Anjomis had downloaded the documents sent by FTP 

and that Renfrow had viewed the FTP notifications. Specifically for Defendants Katherine 

Anjomi and Michael Anjomi, the Court also finds that service on Mr. Fenster is appropriate 

because Mr. Fenster represents the Anjomis in settlement discussions with Twitch and service on 

him would be “reasonably calculated to give actual notice” to the Anjomis. Ex. HH.

II. DEFENDANT ERIK BOUCHOUEV

Like the other Defendants, Twitch made substantial efforts in attempting to locate and to 

serve Defendant Bouchouev. Twitch reviewed Defendant Bouchouev’s internet domains, emailed 

Bouchouev multiple times, confirmed that the FTP notification was received, and sent an 

investigator to make multiple inquiries, including talking to Bouchouev’s mother in the 

Netherlands. Mot. 4-6; Pickor Decl. ¶¶ 7-10; Ex. X. Twitch currently has no lead on 

Bouchouev’s whereabouts. Klein Decl. ¶ 14.

Rule 4(f)(3), governing service in foreign countries, permits service “by other means not 

prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Service under Rule 4(f)(3) requires a 

Case 5:16-cv-03404-BLF Document 33 Filed 01/19/17 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

plaintiff to show that (1) service is not prohibited by international agreement, and (2) the method 

of service 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.” Rio 

Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2002); D.Light Design, Inc. 

v. Boxin Solar Co., No. 13-5988-EMC, 2015 WL 526835, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2015).

Because no physical address is known, the Hague Convention does not apply and Court is 

not aware of an applicable international agreement that would prohibit email service. Hague 

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or 

Commercial Matters, art. 1, ratified on April 24, 1967, 20 U.S.T. 361 (“This Convention shall not 

apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known”); D.Light 

Design, 2015 WL 526835, at *2 (noting that the Hague Convention does not apply because the 

physical addresses of the defendants are unknown); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., No. 14-5666, 

2015 WL 1743393, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015) (same).

The Court additionally finds that in these circumstances, service by e-mail would be 

“reasonably calculated to apprise” Bouchouev of this action. This is based on Twitch’s multiple 

emails that were successfully delivered to Bouchouev’s email address, as well as the confirmation 

received by Twitch that Bouchouev had received the FTP notification. 

III. EXTENSION OF TIME

Twitch also requests an extension of time to serve Defendants Renfrow, the Anjomis, 

Pelagatti, Sharaffodin, and Bouchouev. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m) requires a district court to grant 

an extension of time if good cause is shown and permits the district court to grant such an 

extension even absent good cause. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A defendant’s evasion of service can be “good cause.” Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 

(9th Cir. 1985). In support of “good cause,” “[a] plaintiff may also [] show the following: (a) the 

party to be served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer 

no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991).

Even if a good cause finding is not necessary, Twitch has demonstrated good cause here.

Case 5:16-cv-03404-BLF Document 33 Filed 01/19/17 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Twitch has been diligent in attempting to locate and serve the defendants and a significant amount 

of time was required for Twitch to perform its investigations. The facts presented to the Court are 

consistent with potential evasion of service. There is no evidence that Defendants will suffer 

prejudice if the Court were to grant this extension because the proceeding is still at its early stage. 

In contrast, dismissing the claims against Defendants would prejudice Twitch.

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The motion to serve Defendants Renfrow and Bouchouev the complaint and all future 

documents in this action via e-mails is GRANTED. Defendant Alex Renfrow shall be served via 

email at sexygurl1505@gmail.com, blastgram@gmail.com, and sales@famehomies.com.

Defendant Erik Bouchouev shall be served via email at noxalis@hotmail.com and 

twitchviewerbot@gmx.ch. 

The motion to serve Defendants Katherine Anjomi and Michael Anjomi the complaint and 

all future documents in this action via e-mails and via mail service on their counsel is GRANTED. 

Defendants Michael Anjomi and Katherine Anjomi shall be served via email at 

twitchshop.com@gmail.com, upitpromo@gmail.com, vegaskathy@yahoo.com, and 

manjomi@gmail.com; and via their counsel, Fred A. Fenster, Esq., using overnight mail. 

The Court also GRANTS Twitch a 120-day extension to serve Defendants Renfrow, the 

Anjomis, Pelagatti, Sharaffodin, and Bouchouev. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2017

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03404-BLF Document 33 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 5