Ismailov v. Hutseriev
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-03287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ismailov v. Hutseriev, Judge Torres granted email service on all defendants but denied fax service through Sberbank’s U.S. subsidiary.
The ruling affects plaintiffs Musaib Ismailovych Ismailov and Akhmed Hadzhyio vych Bilalov and defendants Public Joint Stock Company “Sberbank of Russia,” Mykhailo Safarbekovych Hutseriev, and Stanislav Kostiantynovych Kuznetsov by determining how the defendants may be served with the lawsuit.
What happened
In Ismailov v. Hutseriev, the plaintiffs asked the court for permission to serve the defendants through alternative methods because the defendants are in Russia.
The court found that personal service was impracticable and that email service could provide adequate notice. The plaintiffs identified professional or personal email addresses for the individual defendants and several email addresses for Sberbank.
Judge Torres granted the motion in part and denied it in part: email service on all defendants was granted, but faxing Sberbank through its U.S. subsidiary was denied. The court directed the plaintiffs to serve that subsidiary under New York law.
The detailed version
- Ismailov v. Hutseriev · No. 1:24-cv-03287
- Vernon Broderick
- June 6, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs Musaib Ismailovych Ismailov and Akhmed Hadzhyio vych Bilalov asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) to serve defendants Public Joint Stock Company “Sberbank of Russia,” Mykhailo Safarbekovych Hutseriev, also known by other names listed in the order, and Stanislav Kostiantynovych Kuznetsov by alternative methods. Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to direct service on a defendant outside the United States by means that are not prohibited by an international agreement and that satisfy due process, meaning the method must be reasonably likely to notify the defendant and give the defendant an opportunity to respond.
The plaintiffs said personal service was impracticable because the defendants are located in Russia and Russia no longer provides service through the central authority process under the Hague Convention for service abroad. They identified professional and personal email addresses for Hutseriev and Kuznetsov. For Sberbank, they proposed sending email to its United States counsel in two recent cases, public email addresses, and email addresses for its chief executive officer and deputy chairman.
The plaintiffs also asked to serve Sberbank by faxing its U.S. subsidiary, Sberbank CIB USA, Inc. The order states that the subsidiary maintains an office in New York, but the plaintiffs did not explain why they could not serve that subsidiary under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 311(a), which provides for personal delivery to a corporation’s officer or agent or to the New York Secretary of State.
Ruling
The court found that email service would not violate an international treaty and that the plaintiffs had shown a sufficient likelihood that the proposed emails would reach the defendants. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion to serve all defendants by email.
The court denied the request to serve Sberbank by fax through Sberbank USA and directed the plaintiffs to serve Sberbank USA in accordance with New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 311. Judge Analisa Torres stated that the motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.