Zanghi v. Ritella
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:19-cv-05830
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Zanghi v. Ritella, Judge Buchwald granted in part Zanghi’s request to serve two defendants in Italy by email and other approved methods.
Francesco Zanghi and Zanghi LLC, as the parties seeking alternative service, and Gianluca Alocci and Stefano Callegari, as the defendants to be served.
What happened
In Zanghi v. Ritella, Francesco Zanghi and Zanghi LLC asked to serve Gianluca Alocci and Stefano Callegari, who reside in Italy, using email and an American attorney. Earlier attempts through mail and Italian authorities had not produced signed return receipts or successful service through the authorities.
The court found that email alone was not enough for Alocci because the proposed address might no longer be active. It found that Callegari could be served by email because recent messages showed that he was using the account and already knew about the lawsuit. The court also found that Craig Dietsch could not receive service for Alocci because the record did not establish that Dietsch represented him.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted in part the motion for alternative service. She authorized email service on Callegari and required several simultaneous email and registered-mail methods for Alocci, including use of addresses and physical locations listed in official Italian records. The order warned that both defendants could face default certificates and judgments if they did not respond after service was completed.
The detailed version
- Zanghi v. Ritella · No. 1:19-cv-05830
- Naomi Buchwald
- Nov. 25, 2020
Background
Francesco Zanghi and Zanghi LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for permission to serve foreign defendants Gianluca Alocci and Stefano Callegari by alternative methods. They sought to use email and service through Craig Dietsch, an American attorney for co-defendants in the case.
Alocci and Callegari reside in Italy. Zanghi had arranged for the Clerk of Court to mail both defendants the summons and amended complaint under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii). The package sent to Alocci was undeliverable because he was unavailable to accept it, although postal officials left notice that he could collect it. The package sent to Callegari was delivered to his address. Zanghi had not obtained signed return receipts from either defendant. Zanghi also had unsuccessfully attempted service through Italian authorities under Rule 4(f)(1).
Legal standard
Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to order service on an individual outside the United States by a method that is not prohibited by an international agreement. The method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to inform the person of the lawsuit and give that person an opportunity to respond. The court stated that there was no agreement between Italy and the United States prohibiting service by email or through American counsel.
Service by email
For Alocci, Zanghi proposed using gianluca.alocci@studiocavallaro.org. Alocci had used that address to contact Zanghi several times between October 2018 and June 2019 about the pizzerias involved in the case. The court held that this evidence did not show that the address was still likely to reach Alocci. There was no proof that he had used it for nearly a year and a half, the associated website was not functional or otherwise linked to Alocci, and Italy’s official registry of lawyers listed two different email addresses for him. The court therefore ruled that Zanghi could not serve Alocci through the studiocavallaro.org address alone.
For Callegari, Zanghi proposed using callegari.ste@gmail.com. Although the initial evidence showed use of that address as recently as January 2019, later evidence showed that the account had been used to contact Zanghi’s counsel as recently as October 27, 2020. The messages included Callegari’s information, referred to a dispute in New York City, and mentioned an envelope related to the lawsuit that Callegari had received. Combined with delivery of the summons and amended complaint to Callegari’s address, this evidence satisfied due process. The court authorized service on Callegari by emailing the summons, amended complaint, order, and Italian translations to that Gmail address.
Service through Craig Dietsch
Because Callegari could be served by email alone, the court considered service through Dietsch only as to Alocci. The court noted that Dietsch had filed letters purportedly on behalf of Alocci and Callegari but stated that he had never represented them in any capacity. The court declined to assume that an attorney-client relationship existed. Because Dietsch was not Alocci’s counsel, the usual reasons for allowing service through a party’s attorney—such as open communication and a fiduciary relationship—were absent. The court ruled that Alocci could not be served by emailing the legal papers to Dietsch.
Approved methods for Alocci
To avoid further motion practice, the court authorized a combination of methods to be carried out simultaneously for Alocci:
- Emailing the summons, amended complaint, order, and Italian translations to g.alocci@giustizia.cloud and gianluca.alocci@ordineavvocatiroma.org, the two addresses associated with Alocci in Italy’s official registry of lawyers. - Emailing the same materials to gianluca.alocci@studiocavallaro.org, the address Alocci had used to communicate with Zanghi. - Sending the materials by registered mail to Alocci at the address on his Roman certificate of residence. - Sending the materials by registered mail to the two physical addresses associated with Alocci in Italy’s official registry of lawyers.
Disposition
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted in part Zanghi’s motion for alternative service, subject to the conditions in the memorandum. The order cautioned Alocci and Callegari that certificates of default and default judgments could be entered against them if they failed to respond to the amended complaint after Zanghi completed service through all methods approved by the court. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 110.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.