Stebbins v. Garcia Baz

Background

David A. Stebbins filed claims against Thiago Chagas Garcia Baz for libel, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and copyright infringement. Stebbins was representing himself and had identified a physical address for Garcia Baz in Brazil. He asked the court for permission to serve the lawsuit by email, arguing that he did not first need to try the conventional methods listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) and that Garcia Baz already knew about the case.

The court had previously denied Stebbins’s first request for email service without prejudice. Stebbins then filed the second motion addressed in this order.

Legal Standard

Rule 4(f) governs service on an individual located outside the United States. It permits service through internationally agreed methods, certain other authorized methods, or other methods that a court orders if they are not prohibited by an international agreement.

The court focused on the Hague Convention on service abroad. The United States and Brazil are parties to that convention. The court explained that the convention’s approved service methods generally control when it applies and that it does not permit a court to use an inconsistent method. Brazil had objected to service by postal mail under Article 10, but the court concluded that Brazil’s lack of a separate objection to email did not amount to permission for email service. The court also found no agreement between Brazil and the United States, and no Brazilian law, authorizing email service under the convention’s alternative-service provisions.

Analysis

The court rejected Stebbins’s reliance on a case involving Costa Rica because Costa Rica was not a party to the Hague Convention. The court also distinguished other cases allowing email service because those cases involved defendants in countries where the convention did not apply or did not involve foreign service.

The court recognized that service outside the methods specified by the Hague Convention may sometimes be allowed when the defendant’s physical address cannot be found, the foreign country’s central authority fails or refuses to serve the defendant, or urgent circumstances exist. Stebbins did not show any of those circumstances. He had provided a physical address, service had not yet been attempted, and the court found that the expense and delay of Hague Convention service did not by themselves establish urgency. The court also concluded that Garcia Baz’s alleged actual knowledge of the lawsuit did not make email service permissible.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros denied Stebbins’s Second Motion for Leave to Serve by Email. The order stated that service on Garcia Baz must be carried out under the Hague Convention and that the court intended to discuss service options with Stebbins at the July 18, 2024 case-management conference.