Flickinger v. Castillo

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff Jason Archie Flickinger’s second ex parte application for alternative service. The order addresses service of Mexican defendants by email, WhatsApp, and Facebook under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), including requests for group service and individually directed electronic service. The court concludes that the proposed electronic methods are not prohibited by international agreement but evaluates whether each method is reasonably calculated to provide notice.

Holdings

1. Service by email, WhatsApp, and Facebook, including Facebook Messenger, is not prohibited by an international agreement with Mexico, including the Hague Service Convention.
2. A proposed alternative method of service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and afford them an opportunity to present objections.
3. Group service may be authorized under Rule 4(f)(3) when the evidence shows that service through a related individual or group account is reasonably calculated to notify the defendant, but group service is not authorized merely because defendants formerly worked together or had an attenuated professional relationship.
4. Authorized email service must use Registered Email, and WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger service must be sent by an adult third party who, based on Plaintiff's best information, has not been blocked by the recipient; the summons and specified plain-text identifying information must accompany the communication.

Questions Presented

1. Whether service by email, WhatsApp, Facebook wall post, or Facebook Messenger on defendants located in Mexico is prohibited by the Hague Service Convention or another international agreement.
2. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated that the proposed individual and group electronic-service methods were reasonably calculated to apprise particular defendants of the action and afford them an opportunity to present objections.
3. Whether the court should authorize or deny alternative service for each defendant based on the evidence connecting the proposed communication method or intermediary to that defendant.
4. What conditions and deadlines should govern any authorized electronic service.

Disposition

other