Yao v. Altatis

Background

Todd Yao filed a defamation action against Coco Altatis, Conan Daily, and unnamed defendants. The complaint alleges that Altatis is the publisher of the conandaily.com website, which is owned by Conan Daily. Yao alleged that a November 2024 article titled “13 things about Cupertino, California’s Dr. Todd Yao” contained false and defamatory statements and falsely suggested that he had been convicted of a crime.

Yao moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for permission to serve Altatis and Conan Daily by email or by messages to their Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts. He said that he had been unable to identify their physical addresses or a registered agent for Conan Daily in the United States. He asserted that Altatis lives in the Philippines and that Conan Daily operates entirely online, using servers located in the Northern District of California. Yao’s counsel had attempted to contact the defendants by email and through social media but had received no response.

Legal standard

Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to direct service of process outside the United States by a method that is not prohibited by an international agreement. The method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to notify the defendants about the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to respond. The court has discretion to decide whether alternative service is appropriate.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Hague Service Convention applies when service is made in a country that is a party to that agreement. The United States and the Philippines are parties. The Philippines has objected to certain methods described in Article 10, including sending judicial documents through postal channels. Federal district courts have disagreed about whether that objection also prohibits service by email.

The court found that Yao’s motion did not address the Philippines’ objection or establish that the proposed methods were not prohibited by an international agreement. The court also rejected Yao’s reliance on a prior Ninth Circuit decision because that decision involved a country that was not a party to the Hague Service Convention. The court further noted that Yao had not shown that the defendants had no known address, because the complaint alleged that the website was hosted on servers owned by Automattic in San Francisco, and Yao had not indicated whether he sought the defendants’ contact information from Automattic.

The court separately found that Yao had not shown that the proposed methods were reasonably calculated to provide notice. An email sent to the address listed on Conan Daily’s website had received no response, and the motion provided no other information showing that the address was reliable. The evidence also did not establish whether Altatis and Conan Daily shared social-media accounts or explain why messages through Twitter and Instagram were likely to reach the defendants.

Disposition

The court denied Yao’s motion for an order authorizing alternative service without prejudice. The opinion ruled on the requested service method and did not decide the merits of Yao’s defamation claims.