Dyer v. DOES 1-10
- Joseph Spero
- 3:23-cv-01226
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dyer v. John Does 1-10, Judge Spero denied alternative email service because plaintiff did not know defendants’ identities or locations.
The plaintiff and the unidentified Doe defendants; the order denied the plaintiff’s request to serve the Doe defendants by email.
What happened
In Dyer v. John Does 1-10, the plaintiff, who alleges she was a victim of a cryptocurrency scam, asked to serve the unidentified defendants by email.
The plaintiff had pursued third-party discovery for more than twenty months but had not learned who the defendants were or where they lived. The court explained that it could not determine whether the rules for serving defendants in other countries applied, or whether the defendants were in the United States or abroad.
Judge Spero denied the motion for alternative service. The court also stated that it found no authority allowing a Doe defendant to be served before the plaintiff discovers that defendant’s identity.
The detailed version
- Dyer v. DOES 1-10 · No. 3:23-cv-01226
- Joseph Spero
- Nov. 18, 2024
Background
The plaintiff alleges that she was the victim of a cryptocurrency scam. She pursued extensive third-party discovery after filing the case in an effort to identify the alleged perpetrators. After more than twenty months, she still had not determined the true identities or residences of the Doe defendants. She asked the court for permission to serve them by email addresses from which she had received communications.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) can sometimes allow alternative service on a foreign defendant, including service by email, when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court cited Ninth Circuit authority recognizing that email service may be appropriate for an elusive international defendant. It also noted that courts disagree about whether email service is prohibited in some circumstances involving countries that have objected to certain forms of alternative service under the Hague Convention.
Analysis
The court concluded that it lacked information about the Doe defendants’ domiciles and that the plaintiff did not know where they resided. As a result, the court could not determine whether Rule 4(f)(3) applied or whether the defendants were located in the United States or a foreign country.
The court further stated that the plaintiff had not cited, and the court had not found, authority permitting service on a Doe defendant before the plaintiff had uncovered that defendant’s identity. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court explained that plaintiffs may use discovery to identify unknown defendants, but Doe defendants must eventually be dismissed if discovery does not reveal their identities. The court concluded that ordering alternative service under these circumstances would be improper.
Disposition
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service. The order did not dismiss the case or state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.