Kumar v. Alhunaif
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-00321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kumar v. Alhunaif, Judge Furman denied without prejudice the request to serve defendants through Facebook alone.
Leena Kumar’s request to serve Barrak Abdulmohsen Alhunaif and the other defendants through Facebook alone was denied without prejudice. The opinion permits renewal with additional supporting evidence.
What happened
In Kumar v. Alhunaif, Leena Kumar asked to notify the defendants of the lawsuit through Facebook under a rule allowing alternative service.
Kumar argued that certain Facebook accounts belonged to the defendants and that service through those accounts would satisfy fairness requirements. The court found that alternative service could be appropriate but that the evidence was not enough to approve Facebook as the only method.
Judge Furman denied the motion without prejudice. Kumar may renew the request by providing more evidence that Facebook service would likely notify the defendants about the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Kumar v. Alhunaif · No. 1:23-cv-00321
- Jesse Furman
- July 26, 2023
Background
Leena Kumar moved for permission to serve Barrak Abdulmohsen Alhunaif and the other defendants through Facebook. She relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits certain forms of service outside the United States when authorized by the court, and argued that service through Facebook would satisfy the constitutional requirement of providing notice reasonably calculated to inform the defendants of the lawsuit.
Court’s analysis
Judge Furman agreed that alternative service could be appropriate but declined to approve Facebook as the only method. The court explained that courts in the Southern District of New York have generally rejected Facebook-only service when the evidence that an account belongs to a defendant, and that the defendant regularly uses it, consists mainly of the account’s name, images, and listed friends. The court also noted that the decisions Kumar cited generally treated Facebook as an additional or backup method of service rather than the sole method.
Ruling
The court denied Kumar’s motion without prejudice to renewal. Kumar may renew the request if she provides additional evidence showing that service through Facebook would be reasonably calculated to notify the defendants of the lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.