Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06863/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06863-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Baumann
Plaintiff
Bianca Froese-Acquaye
Defendant

Document Text:

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

PETER BAUMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIANCA FROESE-ACQUAYE,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06863-JCS 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO 

SERVE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO 

RULE 4(f)(3) AND CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Plaintiff Peter Baumann seeks leave to serve Defendant Bianca Froese-Acquaye pursuant 

to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that service on a defendant 

located outside the United States may be effectuated “by other means not prohibited by 

international agreement, as the court orders.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Having purportedly

tried and failed to serve Froese-Acquaye pursuant to the Hague Convention at an address in 

Germany that turned out to be incorrect, Baumann asks the Court to allow him to serve FroeseAcquaye by emailing her attorney Gunnar Berndorff and sending process via DHL to Berndorff’s 

office in Berlin.

Baumann is correct that the terms of the Hague Convention do not apply when a 

defendant’s address is unknown and that courts have granted applications to proceed with 

alternative methods of service under such circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Distribuidora 

Batiz CGH, S.A. De C.V., No. 07cv370-WQH-JMA, 2011 WL 1561086, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 

2011). This Court nevertheless takes issue with five aspects of Baumann’s application.

First, Baumann submits documents in German to support his assertion that he tried and 

failed to serve Froese-Acquaye pursuant to the Hague Convention. If Baumann would like the

Court to consider documents in a language other than English, he must provide a translation of at 

least the relevant portions of the documents at issue.

Case 3:18-cv-06863-JCS Document 15 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Second, Baumann provides no evidence (as opposed to mere argument) that he does not 

know Froese-Acquaye’s current address. If Baumann renews his request, he should provide a 

declaration stating the lack of such knowledge.

Third, Baumann provides no explanation of what if any efforts he has taken to determine 

Froese-Acquaye’s current address. Any renewed application must include evidence of due 

diligence.

Fourth, Baumann provides no evidence that Berndorff in fact represents Froese-Acquaye

or that Berndorff can be reached at the email address and mailing address that Baumann proposes 

to use for substitute service. Any renewed application should attach correspondence or other 

evidence supporting those conclusions.

Finally, the Court is not persuaded that a lower level of procedural rigor is appropriate for 

service on a party’s attorney who resides abroad than would be required for service on the party if 

the party’s address were known. Unless Baumann shows cause why his proposed method of 

service is preferable, the Court will permit substitute service on Berndorff, if at all, only using the 

same procedures provided under the Hague Convention for service on Froese-Acquaye herself.

Baumann’s application to allow service under Rule 4(f)(3) is therefore DENIED without 

prejudice to filing a renewed application addressing the issues stated above. The motion to 

continue the case management conference set for July 19, 2019, is also DENIED without prejudice 

to renewing that request in the context of a renewed application for substitute service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06863-JCS Document 15 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 2