American Work Adventures, Inc. v. Murugian

Background

The plaintiffs applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for permission to serve the defendants by alternative means. The underlying lawsuit alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair business practices, and breach of contract. The plaintiffs allege that OptiSol Business Solutions (“Optisol”) breached its agreement with American Work Adventures, Inc. while adapting the plaintiff’s database for the Summer and Work Travel Program.

The opinion states that Karthik Murugian is Optisol’s chief executive officer and that Optisol is a sole proprietorship with its principal office in India. The plaintiffs first attempted service through an international process-serving company, which told them that service could be made only through the Hague Convention. They then attempted service at two United States locations where the defendants had previously done business, but those attempts were unsuccessful.

The plaintiffs’ counsel later sent the pleadings and a notice-and-acknowledgment form by mail and email. Murugian responded that he had received information about the lawsuit and was discussing his options with his legal team. Counsel then gave him one day to respond before stating that further legal action would follow. The plaintiffs argued that service by email was proper based on their earlier efforts and the reasonableness of that method.

Legal standard

Rule 4(f) governs service on an individual in a foreign country. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may authorize methods such as email if the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court also has discretion to decide whether the circumstances and needs of the case justify alternative service.

Court’s analysis

The court disagreed that alternative email service was warranted. It noted that Murugian had communicated directly with counsel and had said he would respond about the notice-and-acknowledgment form after consulting his legal team. The court found that counsel’s February 18, 2021 email gave Murugian only one day to respond and did not ask whether he had consulted his legal team or when he expected to respond.

The court also stated that consulting legal counsel was appropriate because India’s status as a Hague Convention member state could prevent alternative service methods altogether. Given Murugian’s direct communication with counsel, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3).

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ application to serve the defendants by alternative means without prejudice. The order disposed of docket item 9. It did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying trade-secret, unfair-business-practices, or contract claims.