Doe v. Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.

Background

Self-represented Plaintiff Jane Doe moved for permission to use alternative service to serve Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Sun Ltd.”). The opinion identifies Sun Ltd. as an Indian company and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Sun Inc.”) as Sun Ltd.’s U.S.-based subsidiary.

Doe proposed two methods: emailing Sun Ltd.’s U.S.-based counsel or sending registered mail to Sun Inc. The opinion states that Sun Inc.’s counsel appears to represent both Sun Inc. and Sun Ltd. Sun Inc. had already appeared in the action to remove the case to federal court.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows court-directed service on a foreign defendant when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court determined that the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters did not apply because the proposed methods would not involve transmitting documents abroad to effect service there.

The court then considered whether the proposed methods were reasonably calculated to notify Sun Ltd. of the case and give it an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that emailing Sun Ltd.’s U.S.-based counsel would provide sufficient notice because counsel had already appeared in the action and appeared to represent Sun Ltd. The court likewise concluded that registered mail to Sun Inc. would adequately notify Sun Ltd. because Sun Inc. had appeared in the case, was identified as Sun Ltd.’s subsidiary, and appeared to share counsel with Sun Ltd.

Ruling

Judge Rita F. Lin granted Doe’s motion for alternative service. The order permits Doe to serve Sun Ltd. either by email through its U.S.-based counsel or by registered mail to Sun Inc. Doe must complete the alternative service by December 15, 2025.