ShelterZoom Corporation v. Goroshevsky
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10162
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In ShelterZoom v. Goroshevsky, Judge Nathan granted permission to serve Pantaz by email and through her U.S. counsel.
ShelterZoom was permitted to serve Ekaterina Pantaz by email at her personal email address and through her U.S. counsel. The order did not resolve the claims against Pantaz or the other defendant.
What happened
ShelterZoom Corporation asked the court to let it serve Ekaterina Pantaz, who the complaint says resides in Russia, in a lawsuit alleging trade-secret misuse, fraud, contract violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with a contract.
The court explained that Russia had stopped using the usual international service process and had objected to service by international mail. It found that email service was not prohibited by an international agreement and was likely to reach Pantaz because an earlier email to her personal address led to a response from her U.S. counsel. The court also found that service through that counsel satisfied the same requirements.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted ShelterZoom’s requests to serve Pantaz by email at her personal address and through her U.S. counsel, resolving the motion at Docket No. 20.
The detailed version
- ShelterZoom Corporation v. Goroshevsky · No. 1:19-cv-10162
- Alison Nathan
- July 23, 2020
Background
ShelterZoom Corporation asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) to serve its complaint on Defendant Ekaterina Pantaz, whom the complaint identifies as residing in Leningrad, Russia and being a Russian citizen. The requested methods were email to Pantaz’s personal email address and service through Dimitry Joffe, identified as Pantaz’s U.S. counsel for dispute-resolution purposes.
The complaint alleged trade-secret misappropriation, fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract. The order addressed only the requested methods of serving Pantaz; it did not decide those underlying claims.
Legal standard
Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to authorize service on an individual outside the United States by means not prohibited by an international agreement. The court stated that an alternative method must satisfy two requirements: it must not be prohibited by an international agreement, and it must satisfy due process. Due process requires a method reasonably calculated to inform the person about the lawsuit and give that person an opportunity to respond.
Court’s analysis
The court found that ShelterZoom could not currently serve Pantaz in Russia through the usual procedures under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. The order stated that Russia no longer effects service through the Convention’s Central Authority and has objected to service through international mail.
As to email, the court concluded that Russia had not expressly objected to electronic service and that the court was not aware of an international agreement or Russian law prohibiting service by email. The court also found that email service was likely to reach Pantaz because ShelterZoom’s then-counsel had emailed her about the case on July 30, 2019, and received a response from Joffe, her U.S. counsel, one week later.
The court separately found that service through Joffe was not prohibited by the Hague Convention or another current agreement between the United States and Russia. It also concluded that service through Pantaz’s U.S. counsel was unlikely to violate due process.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan GRANTED ShelterZoom’s requests to serve Pantaz by email at her personal email address and through her U.S. counsel. The order stated that this resolved Docket No. 20.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.