Domestika v. Wiedemann

Background

Domestika, Inc. filed the case against Julius Wiedemann in June 2026. Domestika acknowledged that Wiedemann is a citizen of Brazil and asked the court to authorize service of the lawsuit by email.

Domestika identified an address for Wiedemann in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil is a signatory to the Hague Service Convention, which requires service through Brazil’s designated Central Authority. Domestika had not attempted service through that authority and proposed sending documents to the identified address by courier only as “supplemental notice.”

The Motion

Domestika relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits service on an individual in a foreign country by other court-authorized means. Domestika argued that this method stands independently of other foreign-service methods and is not limited to situations involving a last resort or extraordinary relief. The court understood Domestika to prefer avoiding the time involved in serving Wiedemann through the Hague Service Convention, but Domestika did not directly explain why alternative service was warranted under these circumstances.

Ruling

The court concluded that alternative service was not appropriate in this case, even though service through the Convention might be time-intensive. The court cited another Northern District of California decision rejecting email service for a defendant located in Brazil and referred to Rule 4, which recognizes internationally agreed methods of service reasonably calculated to give notice, including methods authorized by the Hague Service Convention.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Domestika’s motion for an order authorizing alternative service. The court directed Domestika to file a status report of no more than five pages by October 9, 2026, detailing its efforts to serve Wiedemann. The court also vacated the September 15, 2026, case-management conference.