Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Justin Johnston

Background

Twitch Interactive, Inc. sued Justin Johnston and other defendants, alleging that they provided bot services that artificially increased popularity statistics for broadcasters in the gaming community in an effort to qualify for compensation through Twitch’s program. Twitch had served one defendant but had not served the defendants addressed by this motion.

Twitch asked the court for permission to serve Alex Renfrow, Erik Bouchouev, Katherine Anjomi, and Michael Anjomi through alternative methods, primarily email. Twitch also requested a 120-day extension of the deadline to serve Renfrow, the Anjomis, Pelagatti, Sharaffodin, and Bouchouev.

Alternative service

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) allows service on an individual by following the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. The court relied on California Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30, which allows a court to direct another method of serving a summons when that method is reasonably calculated to give the person actual notice.

The court found that Twitch had made substantial efforts to serve Renfrow, including reviewing internet-domain records, sending emails, sending the complaint and summons through file-transfer notifications, and using an investigator. Twitch made similar efforts to locate and serve Katherine and Michael Anjomi, and received confirmation that they had downloaded files sent through file transfer. The court also found that service through Fred A. Fenster was appropriate because he represented the Anjomis in settlement discussions, although he was not authorized to accept service on their behalf.

For Bouchouev, Twitch reviewed his internet domains, sent multiple emails, confirmed receipt of a file-transfer notification, and investigated his location, including inquiries with his mother in the Netherlands. Because Twitch did not know a physical address for Bouchouev, the court found that the Hague Convention did not apply and that it was not aware of an international agreement prohibiting email service. The court determined that the email addresses and file-transfer notification were reasonably calculated to alert Bouchouev to the lawsuit.

Extension of time and ruling

Under Rule 4(m), a court must extend the service deadline when good cause exists and may extend it even without a finding of good cause. The court found good cause because Twitch had diligently investigated and attempted service, the circumstances were consistent with possible evasion of service, the case was still at an early stage, and there was no evidence that the defendants would be prejudiced. The court also found that dismissing the claims against the defendants would prejudice Twitch.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion to serve Renfrow and Bouchouev with the complaint and future documents by email. She granted the motion to serve Katherine and Michael Anjomi by email and by mail through their counsel. She also granted Twitch a 120-day extension to serve Renfrow, the Anjomis, Pelagatti, Sharaffodin, and Bouchouev. The order addressed service and timing only; it did not decide the allegations’ merits.