Ryzhov v. $5
Ryzhov v. $5,379,876.94 In United States Currency Formerly on Deposit in Sunflower Bank, NA
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ryzhov v. Malofeyev, Judge Furman gave pro se plaintiff 30 days to seek court-approved alternate service instead of dismissing the case.
Evgeny Ryzhov, who was representing himself, and the defendants Konstantin Malofeyev and Tsargrad TV. The order concerned whether Ryzhov properly served the defendants and gave him an opportunity to request alternate service.
What happened
In Ryzhov v. Malofeyev, Evgeny Ryzhov sought a default judgment after attempting to serve Konstantin Malofeyev and Tsargrad TV in Russia. The court had serious doubts that either service attempt was valid.
The court explained that Ryzhov had not obtained permission for alternate service. It also identified problems with emailing Malofeyev’s attorney, mailing papers to an address in Russia, publishing an untranslated Russian-language article, and personally delivering papers to someone allegedly authorized to accept them for Tsargrad TV.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not dismiss the case at that time. Because Ryzhov was representing himself, the court allowed him 30 days to file a motion seeking alternate service under the federal service rules.
The detailed version
- Ryzhov v. $5 · No. 1:23-cv-01072
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
Evgeny Ryzhov filed a proposed default judgment and proposed certificate of default. He also filed affidavits describing attempted service on Konstantin Malofeyev and Tsargrad TV. One affidavit stated that a non-party personally delivered the summons and complaint to a person in Moscow identified as “Ms. Anna,” who allegedly said she was authorized to accept papers for Tsargrad TV. The other stated that the summons and complaint were emailed to Malofeyev’s attorney, mailed to an address in Russia, and discussed in an article published by “Current Time.”
The court had previously ordered Ryzhov to explain why service on each defendant was proper and effective.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that Ryzhov had not requested advance permission for alternate service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The court also found potential problems with the proposed methods even if permission had been requested. As to Malofeyev, the court questioned whether his attorney represented him in this case, whether the Russian address was Malofeyev’s domicile, and whether mailing papers to Russia was permitted given Russia’s objection to the relevant provision of the Hague Convention. The court also could not evaluate the significance of the “Current Time” article because Ryzhov provided no translation.
As to Tsargrad TV, the court explained that personal delivery is not permitted for a foreign corporation outside the United States under the cited service rules. Ryzhov had not explained why that method would be proper as court-approved alternate service.
Ruling and effect
The court stated that it could dismiss the case for failure to properly serve the defendants. It did not do so at this stage. Because Ryzhov was representing himself, Judge Jesse M. Furman gave him an opportunity to file a motion for alternate service under Rule 4(f)(3). The motion had to be filed within 30 days of the order. The order did not decide the proposed default judgment or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.