Dyer v. Ezeh

Background

Min Ji Goo Dyer identified Chike Ezeh as one of the previously unidentified defendants in the case. The opinion states that Ezeh was linked to a bitcoin account into which Dyer was fraudulently induced to deposit funds. Information obtained from a third party included an email address and a physical address in Nigeria.

The court had previously rejected service at the email address because Dyer had not shown that Ezeh used or checked it. A process server then tried to serve Ezeh at the physical address, which was a government building rather than a residence. The process server and a logistics provider investigated further but could not locate Ezeh. The investigation indicated that Ezeh owned a house behind the government building but apparently no longer lived there.

Court's analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) permits service on an individual in a foreign country through internationally agreed methods, certain other methods reasonably calculated to provide notice, or other methods ordered by the court that are not prohibited by international agreement. The court stated that Nigeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and therefore considered service under Rule 4(f)(3).

The court explained that alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) is one available method of serving an international defendant, not necessarily a last resort. The method must generally be reasonably calculated to inform the defendant about the case and provide an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that publication was constitutionally permissible here because Ezeh was an elusive international defendant and Dyer had been unable, despite diligent efforts, to locate him beyond establishing generally that he resided in Nigeria.

The court also found that publication was consistent with California and Nigerian law. It relied in part on a declaration from Onyekachi W. Duru, an attorney in Nigeria, who stated that personal service was impracticable under Nigerian law and that Vanguard Newspaper had wide national circulation and routinely published legal notices and summonses.

Order

The court GRANTED the motion for alternative service. Dyer was authorized to serve the summons and notice by email and by publication in Vanguard Newspaper. Publication was ordered once a week for four consecutive weeks. Service would be considered complete when Dyer filed an affidavit of publication supplied by Dyer's attorney in Nigeria. Publication was to begin within 30 days of the order, and the affidavit was to be filed within 30 days after the last publication. The court also stated that Dyer did not need to obtain a Nigerian court order permitting service.

The conclusion states that the case-management conference scheduled for December 17, 2025, was continued to March 25, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. That stated new date precedes both the original conference date and the date of this order; the opinion does not explain the apparent inconsistency.