Coscarelli v. Bain Double Impact Fund LP
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-04159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coscarelli v. Bain Double Impact Fund, Judge Furman granted authorization to serve Qoot UK by FedEx at its designated address.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, who received authorization to serve Qoot International UK Limited by FedEx, and Qoot UK, which was to be served at its designated London address. Service on Qoot UK’s former bankruptcy counsel was found constitutionally inadequate.
What happened
In Coscarelli v. Bain Double Impact Fund LP, the plaintiffs brought trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy claims related to the expansion of the “by Chloe” restaurant chain. They asked to serve Qoot International UK Limited by alternative means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).
The court found that sending the summons and Complaint by FedEx to Qoot UK’s designated London address was appropriate. The court rejected service on Qoot UK’s former bankruptcy lawyer as constitutionally inadequate because he had said he no longer represented Qoot in any capacity, although it encouraged the plaintiffs to send him a courtesy copy.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to serve Qoot UK by FedEx at the designated address and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Coscarelli v. Bain Double Impact Fund LP · No. 1:21-cv-04159
- Jesse Furman
- July 6, 2021
Background
Chloe Coscarelli, CC Hospitality Holdings LLC, and Chef Chloe LLC asserted statutory and common-law claims against Bain Double Impact Fund LP, BCIP Double Impact Associates, L.P., Kitchen Fund, L.P., KF-Chloe LLC, Gregory Golkin, Collab + Consumer Fund I, L.P., Lion/BC LLC, and Qoot International UK Limited. The claims concerned trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy arising from the defendants’ roles in expanding the “by Chloe” vegan fast-casual restaurant chain.
Qoot International UK Limited, referred to as Qoot UK, was described as a United Kingdom-based subsidiary of Qoot Company, a hospitality company headquartered in Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits a court to authorize service on a defendant outside the United States by means not otherwise prohibited by international agreement. They proposed sending the summons and Complaint by FedEx to an address where Qoot UK had elected to receive notices under an Asset Purchase Agreement filed in bankruptcy court, and also sending them to Qoot UK’s former local bankruptcy counsel.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) was appropriate and that FedEx service at Qoot UK’s designated address was an acceptable method. The court reached the opposite conclusion regarding service on Qoot UK’s former bankruptcy counsel. Because that lawyer had told the plaintiffs by email that he “no longer represent[s] . . . Qoot in any capacity,” the court found service on him constitutionally inadequate.
The court nevertheless saw no harm in sending the former counsel a courtesy copy of the summons and Complaint and encouraged the plaintiffs to do so. The opinion did not decide the underlying trademark, unfair-competition, or civil-conspiracy claims.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the plaintiffs’ motion for authorization to serve Qoot UK under Rule 4(f)(3) by FedEx at Qoot International UK Limited, 11 Dover Street, First Floor, Mayfair, London, W1S 4LH. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 60.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.