Mom Enterprises, INC. d/b/a Mommy's Bliss v. Roney Innovations, LLC
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-04850
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Mom Enterprises v. Roney Innovations, Judge Hixson allowed service by tracked mail and email after personal-service attempts failed.
Mom Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mommy’s Bliss was authorized to serve Roney Innovations, LLC, through tracked delivery to two Iowa addresses and email. Roney Innovations was the party whose notice and opportunity to respond were addressed.
What happened
Mom Enterprises sued Roney Innovations, LLC, alleging trademark infringement based on Roney’s online sale of infringing products. After six or more attempts to serve Roney Innovations or its registered agent at three Iowa addresses failed, Mom Enterprises asked to use other methods.
The court found that mailing the papers to the registered agent’s home address and the company’s registered Iowa address, along with emailing the company’s publicly listed business email address, were reasonably likely to provide notice of the lawsuit.
In Mom Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mommy’s Bliss v. Roney Innovations, LLC, Judge Hixson granted the motion for alternative service. He authorized tracked delivery to both listed Iowa addresses and email with a requested return receipt, and continued the case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Mom Enterprises, INC. d/b/a Mommy's Bliss v. Roney Innovations, LLC · No. 3:20-cv-04850
- William Orrick
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Mom Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mommy’s Bliss sued Roney Innovations, LLC, alleging trademark infringement based on Roney’s sale of infringing products online. The plaintiff attempted personal service on Roney Innovations or Stephen Roney, identified in the Iowa Secretary of State filing as the company’s registered agent and only listed officer. The attempts covered three addresses: the business address published on Roney Innovations’ website, Stephen Roney’s home address, and the company’s address registered with the Iowa Secretary of State. The attempts failed.
Mommy’s Bliss asked the court to authorize alternative service by common carrier with tracking to Stephen Roney’s home address, by common carrier with tracking to Roney Innovations’ registered address, and by email to the business email address published on the company’s website. No opposition was filed.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) allows service on a domestic corporation in the manner provided for serving an individual under Rule 4(e)(1). That rule permits service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. The court applied Iowa law, which allows service by court order when the ordinary methods cannot be completed, as long as the method satisfies due process. Due process requires a method reasonably calculated to notify interested parties about the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to object.
Court’s analysis
The court found the proposed methods sufficient. The home address was reasonably likely to provide notice because it was Stephen Roney’s residence and the process server had made contact with his wife there. The Des Moines address was reasonably likely to provide notice because Roney Innovations had registered it with the Iowa Secretary of State. The email address was reasonably likely to provide notice because Roney Innovations publicly used it for business contacts through its website and the lawsuit concerned products sold online.
The court concluded that either the mail or email method alone would adequately notify Roney Innovations, and that using both methods together protected the company’s opportunity to respond.
Ruling
The court GRANTED Mommy’s Bliss’s motion for alternative service. It authorized service on Roney Innovations through all three methods: tracked common-carrier delivery to Stephen Roney at the Norwalk address stated in the order, tracked common-carrier delivery to Roney Innovations at its Des Moines address, and email to stephen@roneyinnovations.com with a requested return receipt. The court also required proof that Mommy’s Bliss had attempted, at a minimum, to verify actual receipt of the email. The court continued the case-management conference to November 19, 2020, and adjusted related deadlines.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.