Jeremy Ryan v. Best in Slot, LLC FZ
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Jeremy Ryan, proceeding in forma pauperis, moved for permission to serve the international defendant Best in Slot, LLC FZ via electronic means after failing to locate a physical address. The court granted the motion in part, authorizing service via a specific email address and requiring the plaintiff to identify two additional email addresses for the U.S. Marshal to execute service.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Alternative Service granted in part“Ryan’s request is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits alternative service for defendants outside the United States if the method is not prohibited by international agreement and is reasonably calculated to provide notice. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent (Rio Props.) to establish that the plaintiff need not exhaust all other means of service before seeking electronic service, provided the method is reasonable. The court imposed reasonable conditions (identifying two more emails and using the U.S. Marshal) consistent with the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and Rule 4(c)(3). |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule for international service (Rule 4(f)(3)) and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Rio Props.) to support the use of electronic service without exhausting all other options. The court appropriately noted the inapplicability of the Hague Convention due to the unknown address and imposed procedural safeguards (U.S. Marshal service, additional email addresses) to ensure due process and compliance with IFP requirements.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jeremy RYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-2348-AGS-BLM 4 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 5 MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE v. SERVICE (ECF 19) 6 7 BEST IN SLOT, LLC FZ, 8 Defendant. 9 Plaintiff Jeremy Ryan, proceeding without an attorney and in forma pauperis, seeks 10 permission to serve defendant through alternative means. (See ECF 19.) Generally, the 11 Federal Rules require specific means to serve a would-be international defendant, but a 12 catch-all provision allows service, with court approval, on a defendant “not within any 13 judicial district of the United States” by any “other means not prohibited by international 14 agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Based on that provision, Ryan requests that this Court 15 authorize electronic service on defendant. Ryan is aware that defendant is an international 16 company, and he has been unable, despite diligent record searches, to determine its 17 physical address.1 (See ECF 19-2, at 4–5.) 18 Specifically, he wishes to use email and other electronic means to serve defendants 19 by: 20 1. Email to hi@bestinslot.xyz and any other publicly listed official contact 21 email on bestinslot.xyz. 22 2. Support ticket on the Discord account linked from bestinslot.xyz as long 23 as Plaintiff is not suspended from such. 24 25 1 “[T]he Hague Service Convention does not apply where the address of the person 26 to be served is unknown.” Dongguan Zhouda Tech. v. Dai, No. 2:25-CV-00536-TL, 27 2025 WL 1772099, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2025). For Hague Convention purposes, an “address is unknown if obtaining a physical address for service of process was not found 28 l 3. If available, submission via any official website contact form. 2 4. Upon disclosure of any physical address, follow-up service by 3 international courier. 4 (ECF 19-2, at 3.) He also represents that defendant “transact[s] primarily online” and > “publicly hold[s] out specific electronic channels for contact.” (/d.) 6 Ryan’s request is GRANTED IN PART. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that plaintiff “need not have attempted 8 every permissible means of service of process before petitioning the court for alternative relief’ such as “email” service, so long as “the method selected be reasonably calculated 10 to provide notice and an opportunity to respond”). Ryan may serve defendants through the identified email address: hi@bestinslot.xyz. Ryan must also make his best efforts to 12 identify at least two more email addresses associated with defendant. He must provide 13 those addresses, along with this order, to the United States Marshal for execution of service. M4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (requiring “service be made by a United States marshal or 15 deputy marshal” for plaintiffs “authorized to proceed in forma pauperis”). Also, the 16 U.S. Marshal must include a copy of this Order with its service of Ryan’s complaint. iM Dated: December 19, 2025 19 Andrew G. Schopler 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 a oe