York Town I LLC v. Tarek El Sherif, Martin Schrimpff, Michael Packer, Juan Manuel Ordonez, Nelson Ortiz, and John Does 1–5

Summary

The court denied without prejudice York Town I LLC’s motion for alternative service on foreign defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). It held that email service was generally preempted by the Hague Service Convention where the defendants’ addresses were known, and that Plaintiff had not shown sufficient efforts to effect service through Colombia’s Central Authority or otherwise investigate the defendants’ locations. The court nevertheless sua sponte authorized provisional email service of the preliminary-injunction materials under Article 15 of the Hague Convention and required proof of service by May 4, 2026.

Holdings

1. Rule 4(f)(3) permits court-ordered service by means not prohibited by international agreement, but courts in the Second Circuit generally require a plaintiff to show reasonable attempts to effect service and circumstances warranting court intervention, in addition to compliance with due process.
2. Where the Hague Service Convention applies, email service is an inconsistent method preempted by the Convention and is prohibited unless an applicable Convention provision authorizes it.
3. Although mail service through postal channels was not prohibited by the Hague Convention because Colombia had not objected to Article 10(a), plaintiff was not entitled to court-ordered mail service because it had not shown that it reasonably attempted formal service through Colombia's Central Authority.
4. The requested formal service on Schrimpff was not authorized because plaintiff had not established his location, had not adequately investigated or attempted service at the identified United States address, and, if he resided in Mexico or Spain, email service would be prohibited under the Hague Convention; mail service would be permitted in Spain but prohibited in Mexico under the countries' Convention objections.
5. Article 15 of the Hague Convention authorized the court to permit provisional email service of the complaint, summonses, preliminary-injunction motion, and supporting documents as notice of provisional or protective measures in a case of urgency.
6. The proposed email addresses were reasonably calculated to reach the foreign defendants and therefore satisfied the notice requirements applicable to the provisional email service authorized by the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rule 4(f)(3) permitted service of the complaint and other formal litigation documents on foreign defendants by email or mail.
2. Whether the Hague Service Convention prohibited email or mail service on the foreign defendants.
3. Whether plaintiff had made reasonably diligent efforts to effect formal service and demonstrated circumstances warranting alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3).
4. Whether Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention authorized provisional email service of documents relating to the pending preliminary-injunction proceedings.
5. Whether the proposed email addresses were reasonably calculated to provide notice consistent with Rule 4(f), Rule 65, and due process.

Disposition

other