Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2024

Ryzhov v. $5

Full caption

Ryzhov v. $5,379,876.94 In United States Currency Formerly on Deposit in Sunflower Bank, NA

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-01072
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ryzhov v. Malofeyev, Judge Furman granted Ryzhov’s motion to serve Malofeyev through a guard at his residence under Rule 4(f)(3).

Who this affects

Evgeny Ryzhov and Konstantin Malofeyev; the order concerns how Ryzhov may deliver the lawsuit to Malofeyev.

What happened

In Ryzhov v. Malofeyev, Evgeny Ryzhov asked the court to authorize an alternative way to deliver the lawsuit to Konstantin Malofeyev under a federal service rule.

Ryzhov proposed serving one of Malofeyev’s guards at Malofeyev’s estate in the Moscow Region. A previous service attempt supported that the address was Malofeyev’s residence.

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the motion. The court said Ryzhov should try to serve Malofeyev personally, or serve a guard in Malofeyev’s presence, but allowed the proposed alternative if necessary.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ryzhov v. $5 · No. 1:23-cv-01072
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 7, 2024

Issue

Evgeny Ryzhov asked the court for permission to serve process on Konstantin Malofeyev under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits a court to authorize service on a person outside the United States by means not otherwise specified in the rule, when appropriate under the circumstances.

Proposed Service

Ryzhov proposed serving one of Malofeyev’s guards at the Malofeyev Estate in Zaitsevo Village, in the Moscow Region. The court noted that an earlier attempt to serve Malofeyev supported the conclusion that the address was his residence.

Ruling

The court determined that the proposed method of service was consistent with constitutional due-process requirements and was permissible under Rule 4(f)(3). The court granted Ryzhov’s motion. It instructed Ryzhov to try to serve Malofeyev personally, or to serve one of his guards while Malofeyev was present. If that was not possible, Ryzhov could serve Malofeyev in the proposed manner.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 68. The court also cautioned Ryzhov to properly identify and attribute legal authorities used in future filings, noting that a paragraph in his memorandum appeared to have been copied from another opinion without citation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.