Levi Strauss & Co. v. I.V Trading Company, et al.
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-03863
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Levi Strauss & Co. v. I.V Trading Company, Judge Chen granted in part Levi’s request, allowing email service on I.V Defendants and requiring additional delivery for HBB.
Levi Strauss & Co., the I.V Defendants, HBB, and HBB’s attorney are affected by the court’s directions for serving the case papers.
What happened
Levi Strauss & Co. v. I.V Trading Company involved Levi’s request to use alternative methods to serve the I.V Defendants and HBB with the lawsuit papers. Levi asked to serve them by email under a federal rule governing service on defendants outside the United States.
The court found that email was reasonably likely to notify the I.V Defendants about the case. For HBB, the court allowed email service but also required personal delivery to physical addresses Levi had for HBB and its attorney, unless Levi could show that Panama prohibits that method. The court gave Levi 60 days to complete service.
Judge Edward Chen granted Levi’s request in part and disposed of the application identified as Docket No. 59. The order addressed how Levi could serve the defendants; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Levi Strauss & Co. v. I.V Trading Company, et al. · No. 3:25-cv-03863
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 17, 2026
Background
Levi Strauss & Co. asked the court for permission to use alternative service, meaning a court-approved method other than the proposed ordinary method for serving international defendants. Levi sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows service on an international defendant by means that are not prohibited by an international agreement and that the court orders.
The court had previously required Levi to provide more information. After Levi submitted a supplemental declaration, the court considered the request again.
Ruling on the I.V Defendants
The court found that Levi sufficiently showed that email service at the addresses it located was reasonably calculated to notify the I.V Defendants about the case and give them an opportunity to respond. The court therefore permitted Levi to serve the I.V Defendants by email.
Ruling on HBB
The court expressed more concern about email service on HBB. The proposed email address for Sandra Moreno was questionable because Levi acknowledged that Moreno had died. Some generic email addresses appeared in social-media posts, but several of those posts were relatively old.
Despite those concerns, the court permitted email service on HBB, including at an additional email address Levi identified. The court also required Levi to supplement email service with personal delivery to the physical addresses Levi had for HBB and HBB’s attorney. This additional delivery requirement would not apply if Levi could demonstrate that Panama prohibits service by that method. The court noted that Levi had mailed the summons and complaint to the physical addresses, but that the parties acknowledged there was disagreement among authorities about whether mail service in Panama was proper.
Disposition
The court granted in part Levi’s application for alternative service. Levi has 60 days to serve the I.V Defendants by email and HBB by email and personal delivery. The order disposed of Docket No. 59. Because the order concerned service of process rather than the merits of the underlying dispute, it was a procedural order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.