Securities and Exchange Commission v. Taller

Background

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed this action on April 29, 2025. After unsuccessful efforts to locate Derek E. Taller, the Commission moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for permission to serve him by alternative means. The requested methods were service through Taller’s lawyer in an ongoing matrimonial proceeding, email service, and service through Taller’s mother and two adult daughters.

The opinion states that Taller left the United States for London on August 30, 2023, later stated in another proceeding that he was living in the United Arab Emirates, and was found by investigators to have traveled to Romania. The Commission retained lawyers in the United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates to locate him, but those efforts did not locate him. The Commission also emailed four addresses and received a non-delivery message from only one: dtaller@sthealthcapital.com. Taller did not respond to the emails. His matrimonial lawyer, Peter Nissman, confirmed that he represented Taller but said he was not authorized to accept service or provide other information.

Legal standard

Rule 4(f) governs service on a defendant in a foreign country. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may authorize another method of service when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement and satisfies constitutional due process. Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform the person about the lawsuit and give that person an opportunity to object.

The court explained that a plaintiff does not have to exhaust every possible method of international service before requesting alternative service. It found that the Commission had exercised reasonable diligence by using lawyers in two countries, trying four email addresses, contacting family members, and contacting Taller’s matrimonial lawyer. Because Taller’s address remained unknown, the court concluded that the Hague Convention did not apply and that alternative service was permissible.

Rulings on the proposed methods

The court held that service through Nissman satisfied due process. Although Nissman was not authorized to accept service for Taller, the court found that the ongoing matrimonial proceeding and evidence that Nissman was communicating with Taller made service through him reasonably likely to provide notice.

The court also allowed service by email at three addresses: drtaller@gmail.com, drtaller@proton.me, and dtaller@liberteglobalinv.com. The absence of non-delivery messages from those addresses supported the conclusion that Taller was likely to receive the summons and complaint. The court did not authorize service at dtaller@sthealthcapital.com because the Commission had received a non-delivery message from that address.

The court denied permission to serve Taller through his mother and two adult daughters. The Commission had been unable to establish how much contact Taller had with them, so service through those family members was not reasonably calculated to notify him.

Disposition

The court’s order granted in part and denied in part the Commission’s motion for alternative service. The Commission was permitted to serve Taller through Nissman and by emailing the three addresses that had not produced non-delivery messages. It was required to complete service within 14 days of the order and file proof of service by July 21, 2025. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion docket entry, ECF 3.