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. Silver N Gold was served on October 4, 2024, and Alpine Gold was served on March 5, 2025. Attempts to serve Valiramani with the summons and complaint were unsuccessful.

Europgold previously asked to serve Valiramani by email, but the court denied that request without prejudice because the record did not sufficiently show that conventional service methods were impracticable. Defense counsel, Vivian M. Williams, had filed documents and appeared at an initial pretrial conference, where he said he would file a formal notice of appearance and help coordinate service. Europgold later reported that Williams had stopped communicating with its counsel and had not contacted the court since the conference.

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 is made. New York law allows a court to direct another method of service when the specified methods are impracticable. The alternative method must also be reasonably likely to notify the defendant about the case and give the defendant an opportunity to object, as required by due process.

Court’s analysis

The court found that traditional service methods were impracticable. Europgold submitted a declaration describing public-record searches using the known names of Valiramani and his wife. Europgold attempted service at all addresses found through those searches. At the Sayre Drive Property, an occupant who refused to give his name said that Valiramani was unknown there. The court also considered Williams’s refusal to help coordinate service and the apparent change in his email address without notice to Europgold or the court. Based on these circumstances, the court found that Valiramani was plainly evading personal service.

The court separately found that service by email would satisfy due process. Europgold’s counsel had successfully contacted Valiramani by email in October 2024, and Valiramani had acknowledged receiving the message by signing it with his name and phone number. The court concluded that these facts showed the email address belonged to Valiramani and that the summons and complaint were likely to reach him there.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Europgold’s renewed motion for alternative service. The court ordered Europgold to serve Valiramani by email at silvergoldnyc@aol.com with the summons, complaint, and a copy of the order. As an additional precaution, Europgold must also serve those materials by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the Sayre Drive Property. Europgold must send a copy of the order to both of Williams’s last-known email addresses and file proof of service on the docket by July 16, 2025.