Source: https://www.serverlinks.com/ny-decisions-of-interest/service-of-process-through-facebook-ok-india-defendants/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:13:54+00:00

Document:
(collectively, “defendants”). The FTC proposes to do so by means of both email and Facebook.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
83, 86). Unless otherwise noted, the facts are not disputed.
into spending money to fix non-existent problems with their computers.
As alleged, this scheme was operated in large part out of call centers located in India.
Vikas and Anuj are alleged to have been directors of Connexxions IT Services Private Limited.
alia, enjoined defendants’ business practices and froze various assets of the defendants.
by personal service via a process server.
enable defendants to pay attorneys’ fees. See Dkt. 65.
motions to withdraw as counsel. Dkt. 81.
To date, defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the preliminary injunction.
copying the Court’s chambers email address. See Dkt. 84.
served defendants with this motion via email and overnight mail. Dkt. 82, at 3.
by international agreement; and (2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.” SEC v.
manner as on individual defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2).
Rule 4(f)(3) is ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court.’” United States v.
WL 666158, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v.
assumes, purely arguendo, that Rule 5 service would not be available.
circumstances of the particular case.” (citation omitted)).
before seeking the court’s assistance.” (citation omitted)).
unsuccessful, the FTC represents, it will renew its motion to serve by publication. Id.
Accordingly, the Court here considers only the request to serve by means of email and Facebook.
Table, Members of the Organisation, Hague Conference on Private International Law, http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=17 (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163.
is specifically limited to the means of service enumerated in Article 10. See Gurung v.
objection to alternative means of service in reservation as to Article 10).
provided that due process is also satisfied.
vikas.agrawal@pccare247.com to email the Court on four occasions on January 3 and 6, 2013.
might even receive email alerts upon receipt of such messages).
Facebook message would reach defendants.
rather than dismissing them out of hand as novel. See, e.g., New England Merch. Nat’l Bank v.
reasonable where, as here, the defendants demonstrably already have knowledge of the lawsuit.
See SEC v. Tome, 833 F.2d 1086, 1093 (2d Cir. 1987). Cf. Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afg., No.
01 Civ. 10132 (HB), 2001 WL 1658211, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2001).
Facebook together presents a means highly likely to reach defendants.
to wait five months (or more) for every motion in this case to be served by the Central Authority.
Indian Central Authority would take 6-8 months). The Court’s intervention is warranted here.
and by message to his Facebook account.
anuj.agrawal@pccare247.com, and by message to his Facebook account.
Parmeshwar Agrawal, at the email addresses and Facebook accounts listed above.
Anuj Agrawal, at the email addresses and Facebook accounts listed above.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 82.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.