Mhmoud v. Cheetah X Inc.
- Donna Ryu
- 4:25-cv-00198
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mhmoud v. Cheetah X Inc., Judge Ryu granted alternative service on Debelov by posting, certified mail, and possibly email.
The order directly affects Dina Adel Mhmoud and Alexander Debelov: Mhmoud may serve Debelov through the specified alternative methods, while Cheetah X Inc. was not covered by the ruling.
What happened
Dina Adel Mhmoud sued Cheetah X Inc. and Alexander Debelov over an agreement to purchase electric scooters, asserting securities, contract, fraud, unfair-competition, and conversion claims. She represented herself in seeking permission to serve Debelov by an alternative method.
A process server tried seven times to serve Debelov at his residence. On one occasion, a security guard said Debelov was in Brazil and had not scheduled a return date; on the other attempts, no one answered the door.
Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Mhmoud’s motion for alternative service. She ordered Mhmoud to post the complaint, summons, and order on Debelov’s front door and send them to his residence by certified mail; if Mhmoud had previously contacted Debelov by email, she also had to send them to his most current email address. Mhmoud had to complete service by July 25, 2025, and file proof of service. The order did not address service on Cheetah X.
The detailed version
- Mhmoud v. Cheetah X Inc. · No. 4:25-cv-00198
- Donna Ryu
- June 25, 2025
Background
Dina Adel Mhmoud filed claims against Cheetah X Inc. and Alexander Debelov. The claims allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, breach of contract, fraud, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and conversion. The claims arise from an agreement to purchase a fleet of electric scooters.
Mhmoud, who represented herself, asked to serve Debelov through the “nail and mail” method. A process server attempted personal service at Debelov’s residence seven times between January 14 and February 24, 2025. On January 19, a security guard told the process server that Debelov was in Brazil and had not scheduled a return date. On the other attempts, no one answered the door, and a call to the unit reached only a voicemail greeting.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) permits service on an individual by following the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. California law permits a court to direct another method of service when it is reasonably calculated to give the person actual notice of the action. Due process requires the chosen method to be reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to inform the person about the case and give that person an opportunity to object.
Ruling
The court found that Mhmoud had been diligent, that Debelov lived at the address where service was attempted, and that Debelov knew about at least one service attempt because he spoke with the process server by phone. The court concluded that further attempts at personal service would be futile and that the alternative methods ordered were reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.
The court granted the motion for alternative service. It ordered Mhmoud to direct the process server to:
- Post the complaint, summons, and order on the front door of Debelov’s residence.
- Send copies of the complaint, summons, and order to the residence by certified mail.
- If Mhmoud had personally contacted Debelov by email, send copies to Debelov through the most current email address Mhmoud had previously used to communicate with him.
Mhmoud had to complete service by July 25, 2025, and promptly file proof of service. The order was limited to Debelov because Mhmoud did not request alternative service on Cheetah X, and the opinion states that no proof of service on Cheetah X had been filed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.