XYZ Corp. v. Individuals
XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03068
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Furman granted Fox Shiver LLC’s request to serve foreign defendants by email but denied, without prejudice, the request for domestic defendants.
Fox Shiver LLC and the listed foreign and domestic defendants identified in the motion and Exhibit A.
What happened
In Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint, Fox Shiver asked to serve certain defendants by registered email instead of traditional methods.
The court granted the request for the listed foreign defendants. It denied the request for the listed domestic defendants because Fox Shiver had not shown that traditional service methods were impracticable.
Judge Furman denied the request concerning domestic defendants without prejudice to renewal if traditional service proves impracticable, and granted the request concerning the listed foreign defendants.
The detailed version
- XYZ Corp. v. Individuals · No. 1:25-cv-03068
- Jesse Furman
- May 14, 2025
Background
Fox Shiver LLC moved under Rules 4(e) and 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for permission to serve certain defendants by registered email. The motion concerned foreign defendants listed in Exhibit A and domestic defendants identified in the motion.
Foreign Defendants
The court granted the request for alternative service on the listed foreign defendants under Rule 4(f)(3). The court noted that these defendants either reside in a country that has joined the Hague Convention and does not oppose email service or in a country that has not joined that convention.
Domestic Defendants
The court denied the request for alternative service on the listed domestic defendants under Rule 4(e). It explained that alternative service under that rule requires a showing that traditional service methods are impracticable. Fox Shiver had not explained what steps, if any, it took to obtain the domestic defendants’ information or to attempt traditional service. The court found that Fox Shiver’s statements about the defendants having multiple addresses and being connected through international e-commerce dealings were conclusory and insufficient.
The court denied the request concerning the domestic defendants without prejudice to renewal if traditional service proves impracticable. It granted the request concerning the foreign defendants identified in green on Exhibit A. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 27.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.