Booker v. KFB & Associates Consulting Inc

Background

The plaintiffs—Yolanda Booker, Darnell Edwards, Chaasahn Hughes, and Rayshawn Shaw—asked for permission to serve KFB & Associates Consulting Inc. doing business as Flaggers Ahead, Klaus F. Broscheit, and Vicki Broscheit (the “KFB Defendants”) by email. The opinion states that Klaus F. Broscheit and Vicki Broscheit are the owners of KFB & Associates Consulting Inc.

The plaintiffs submitted a declaration stating that process servers had repeatedly attempted to serve the KFB Defendants at their addresses. After what the court described as diligent efforts, the plaintiffs said they were unable to locate additional addresses. They identified email addresses for Klaus F. Broscheit and Vicki Broscheit using a background-check service.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) permits service on an individual under the law of the state where the federal district court is located. The court explained that New York law allows a court to direct another method of service when service is impracticable under the law’s specified methods.

The court found that the plaintiffs had shown personal service was impracticable. But due process requires a method of service to be reasonably calculated to inform the defendants about the case and give them an opportunity to respond. For email service alone, the plaintiffs had to show that the emails were likely to reach the defendants. A bare statement or conclusion that the emails would likely reach them was not enough.

Ruling

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ identification of the email addresses through a background-check service was insufficient. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence that the KFB Defendants had recently used those addresses or mainly conducted business through them. Without additional evidence, the court could not conclude that emails sent to the identified addresses would actually reach the defendants.

The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ request to serve the KFB Defendants by email without prejudice to renewal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 41.