Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for permission to serve individual defendants who reside in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by court-ordered alternative methods. The opinion says the plaintiffs identified four individual defendants but lists five names in describing the request: Ahmad Abouammo, Saud Al-Qahtani, Ali Alzabarah, Ahmed Almutairi, and Bader Al-Asaker. The opinion does not state a disposition for Ahmad Abouammo.

The plaintiffs proposed methods including service on U.S.-based counsel, the Saudi ambassador and embassy in Washington, D.C., the MiSK Foundation, and email addresses associated with that foundation. They provided evidence that two international service providers declined to assist for safety reasons. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a factual basis for seeking alternative service.

Legal standard

Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to order service on an individual in a foreign country by means not prohibited by an international agreement. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent stating that a plaintiff need not first attempt other methods of international service. The selected method must still satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to notify the defendant of the lawsuit and give the defendant an opportunity to respond.

Rulings

The court granted the request as to Saud Al-Qahtani. It allowed service through his U.S.-based counsel by hand delivery, email, and certified mail. It also ordered substitute service on the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and certified mail to the Saudi embassy. Although the plaintiffs had not provided concrete evidence that Al-Qahtani was a Saudi government employee or a high-level employee, the court found that the embassy service could supplement proper service and potentially increase the likelihood that he would receive actual notice.

The court granted the request as to Bader Al-Asaker. It allowed service through his U.S.-based counsel by hand delivery, email, and certified mail. It also allowed service through U.S.-based counsel for the MiSK Foundation, email to the foundation, and substitute service on the Saudi ambassador and certified mail to the Saudi embassy. The court relied in part on the allegation that Al-Asaker was MiSK’s Secretary General and therefore a significant person within that organization.

The court denied the request as to Ahmed Almutairi because the plaintiffs had not shown that service on the Saudi ambassador or embassy would likely reach him. The opinion says there was no allegation or concrete evidence that Almutairi was a Saudi government employee or important enough within the government for embassy service to provide notice. The court denied the request as to Ali Alzabarah because the plaintiffs had not shown that service through MiSK’s counsel or email addresses would likely notify him. The court stated that Alzabarah’s alleged position at MiSK was not sufficiently defined and that there was no indication he received messages at the proposed email addresses.

Disposition

Judge Edward Chen granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for service by alternative means. The plaintiffs received permission to serve Al-Qahtani and Al-Asaker as described in the order. The court denied the motion as to Almutairi and Alzabarah, without prejudice, and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 75.