SRL v. Kaur
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-01283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Global Brother v. Kaur, Judge Demarchi granted alternative service by email and portal and continued the case-management conference.
Global Brother may serve Will Kaur by the two specified email addresses and PixelShopHub’s customer-service portal; the initial case-management conference was continued.
What happened
Global Brother SRL sued Will Kaur, George Andre Smith, Erika Tillis, and unnamed defendants, alleging they sold counterfeit book copies through an online store. Global Brother had dismissed Smith, served Tillis, and could not find a valid physical address for Kaur.
The court found that two email accounts and the store’s customer-service portal were active and monitored by Kaur or someone believed to be Kaur. The court concluded that using those methods was reasonably likely to give Kaur notice of the lawsuit.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Global Brother’s motion for alternative service. The complaint and summons may be sent to the two listed email addresses and submitted through the portal; the initial case-management conference was continued to December 23, 2025.
The detailed version
- SRL v. Kaur · No. 5:25-cv-01283
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Global Brother SRL filed a copyright infringement action against Will Kaur, George Andre Smith, Erika Tillis, and unnamed defendants. It alleges that the defendants sold counterfeit copies of a book through PixelShopHub, an online store hosted on Shopify.
Global Brother initially tried to serve the defendants at an address listed in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act counter-notice submitted through Shopify. The address appeared to be only Smith’s residence. Global Brother later dismissed Smith and successfully served Tillis. The court previously found Global Brother’s request for alternative service premature but allowed it to subpoena Shopify for information identifying Kaur and providing a physical address for service. Shopify’s records did not provide a valid physical address or other usable information.
Motion and Legal Standard
Global Brother renewed its request to serve Kaur electronically. It proposed sending the complaint and summons to pixelshophub@gmail.com and info@pixelshophub.com and submitting the documents through PixelShopHub’s customer-service portal.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits service under the law of the state where the federal court is located. California law allows a court to direct service in a manner reasonably calculated to give the person actual notice. The court explained that electronic service may be permitted when the plaintiff shows a connection between the electronic account or method and the person to be served.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Global Brother had diligently searched for a valid physical address for Kaur but had not found one. The address in the counter-notice appeared not to be Kaur’s address, and the Shopify subpoena did not identify a usable physical address.
The court also found that the two email accounts and PixelShopHub’s customer-service portal were active and monitored by Kaur or the person believed to be Kaur. The Gmail address was disclosed in Kaur’s counter-notice. Global Brother had corresponded with that address, and it received two emails from the other address after submitting a request through the customer-service portal. Based on these facts, the court concluded that the proposed methods were reasonably calculated to give Kaur actual notice and appeared to be the methods most likely to reach him.
Ruling
The court granted Global Brother’s motion for leave to effect alternative service. Global Brother may serve Kaur by email at pixelshophub@gmail.com and info@pixelshophub.com and by submitting the complaint and summons through the PixelShopHub customer-service portal. Service is effective on the date the emails are sent and the portal submission is completed. Global Brother must promptly tell the court if it learns that a listed email address or the portal is unlikely to reach Kaur, and it must file proof of service by November 4, 2025.
The court also continued the initial case-management conference to December 23, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., by Zoom. The joint case-management statement is due December 16, 2025. The order did not decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.