Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered the plaintiff’s request to serve a Finland-based defendant by email in a copyright infringement action involving a YouTube publication. Although the court found that email service was not precluded by the Hague Service Convention and appeared reasonably calculated to provide notice, it questioned whether Maryland was the proper venue or could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Holdings
- Service by email may be authorized under Rule 4(f)(3) because it is not prohibited by the Hague Service Convention as applied to Finland and is reasonably calculated to provide defendant with actual notice. Defendant's counter notification supplied a current email address and agreed to accept service.
- The current record raises a significant question whether Maryland is a proper venue or whether this court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. Because defendant resides outside the United States and none of the relevant acts occurred in Maryland, venue appears to depend on a district in which defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction; the court therefore required plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be transferred to the Northern District of California.
Questions Presented
- Whether service on a defendant residing in Finland may be authorized by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), the Hague Service Convention, and due-process principles.
- Whether Maryland is a proper venue and whether the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant in light of defendant's DMCA counter-notification consent language.
- Whether plaintiff should be required to show cause why the action should not be transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Cordova v. Huneault, No. 25-cv-04685, 2025 WL 2637504, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025)(followed)
- Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. v. CIA Wheel Grp., No. 8:15-cv-0246-DOC (DFMx), 2016 WL 1251008, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016)(followed)
- William-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., No. C 06-06572 JSW, 2007 WL 1140639, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2007)(followed)
- MacroCharts Rsch. LLC v. Chou, No. 25-cv-06447, 2026 WL 192661, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2026)(followed)
- Mishra v. Doe, No. 26-cv-111, 2026 WL 526694, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2026)(followed)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Moonbug Ent. Ltd. v. HappyKidsTV, No. 22-CV-03203-TLT, 2022 WL 18859471, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2022)(followed)
- Epic Games, Inc. v. Mendes, No. 17-CV-06223-LB, 2018 WL 2926086, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2018)(followed)
- Crunchyroll, Inc. v. Pledge, No. CV 11-2334-SBA, 2014 WL 1347492, at *6 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014)(followed)
- Shropshire v. Canning, No. 10-CV-01941-LHK, 2011 WL 90136, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.