FAT Brands Inc. v. PPMT Capital Advisors, Ltd.

Background

FAT Brands moved for permission to serve defendants Peter Samuel and Mickey Edison by mail and email to Lisa A. Herbert, Esq., and by email to the defendants’ last known email addresses. After the motion was filed, Herbert and two other attorneys from Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP entered appearances for Samuel and Edison. The attorneys filed an opposition on the defendants’ behalf.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits service on an international defendant by means directed by the court, as long as the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The defendants identified no agreement prohibiting the proposed methods. The court explained that the Hague Convention on service abroad did not apply because the address of the person to be served was not known. The court also stated that, even if the Convention applied, Switzerland and the United Kingdom had not specifically objected to service by email or other electronic means.

The court separately considered due process, which requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties about the case and give them an opportunity to object. It found that service through Nelson Mullins was adequate because the firm had entered appearances, filed an opposition, and appeared to be communicating with Samuel and Edison about the case. Email service was also adequate because the email addresses had been provided by counsel for other defendants, had been used by Samuel and Edison during the events alleged in the complaint, had been used for their last communications with FAT Brands, and appeared to remain active.

The court further stated that, even if FAT Brands had to show reasonable efforts to serve Samuel and Edison and a need for court intervention, FAT Brands met that standard through diligent efforts to identify physical addresses.

Order

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted FAT Brands’ motion for alternative service. He ordered FAT Brands, within two business days of the order, to serve the relevant summonses and complaint, including the complaint’s exhibits, on Samuel and Edison by overnight courier and by email to their counsel at Nelson Mullins, and by email to their email addresses. FAT Brands was required to file proof of service within one business day after service.

The court denied as moot FAT Brands’ letter-motion to strike the defendants’ letter-response and directed the clerk to terminate the docket entry for the alternative-service motion.