Europgold Ltd. v. Silver N Gold Wholesale, LLC

Background

Europgold Ltd. sued Silver N Gold Wholesale, LLC, Alpine Gold Group, Inc., and Padam Valiramani, also known as Mike Valiramani. Europgold moved for permission to serve the summons on Valiramani by email. No defendant filed an opposition.

Europgold reported two attempts to serve Valiramani at addresses found through a property-records search. On October 4, 2024, a process server went to an address in New Jersey and found the property vacant. On October 11, 2024, the process server went to a different New Jersey address. The occupant refused to give his name and said he did not know Valiramani. Europgold believed Valiramani lived at the second address but acknowledged that it did not definitively know his whereabouts and did not believe it could obtain that information.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allows service on an individual by following the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service occurs. Under New York law, a court may authorize an alternative method under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5) when the usual methods are impracticable. The proposed alternative method must also be reasonably likely to notify the defendant about the case and give the defendant an opportunity to respond. Email service may be appropriate when the plaintiff shows that the email is likely to reach the defendant.

A plaintiff does not have to prove that it tried every ordinary service method or satisfy a strict due-diligence requirement. But it must provide enough facts to show that ordinary service is impracticable. The court explained that this can include diligent but unsuccessful efforts to learn the defendant’s current residence, business address, or usual place of residence, as well as evidence that the defendant is avoiding service.

Ruling

The court held that Europgold had not made a sufficient showing. Europgold did not explain the nature or extent of its public-records search. Even assuming Valiramani lived at the second address, Europgold had made only one service attempt there. The court also found no evidence that Valiramani was actively evading service. Counsel’s statement that Valiramani’s whereabouts could not be obtained was not enough on this record.

The court therefore denied Europgold’s motion for alternative service without prejudice to renewal no later than April 7, 2025. The court granted Europgold an extension of time to serve Valiramani in a manner authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, also by April 7, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed as Docket Entry 30.