Catalyst Lifestyle Limited v. Elago Co., Ltd

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00536 · 2022-11-29 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Linda Lopez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:14Z · confidence high

The court considered Plaintiff Catalyst Lifestyle Limited's unopposed motion for court-directed alternative service on Defendant Elago Co., Ltd. The court granted the motion, authorizing service via email to Elago's U.S. counsel and extending the time to complete service to December 29, 2022.

What the court decided	The model
Motion for Court Directed Alternative Service Granted “Thus, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Catalyst’s Motion as follows: 1. Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Catalyst shall serve copies of the summons complaint on Defendant and Counter Claimant Elago by alternative service via electronic mail to Elago’s United States based counsel, Ms. Sheila Mojtehedi at sheila@ mojtehedi.com;”	agree with court The court applied the standard from Rio Properties, requiring that the method be reasonably calculated to provide notice. The order recites that Catalyst made diligent efforts under the Hague Service Convention and that the proposed method (email to U.S. counsel) is reasonably calculated to provide notice. This follows the legal requirements for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) and the Hague Convention.
Extension of Time to Complete Service “2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court extends Plaintiff Counter Defendant Catalyst’s time to complete service of process on Defendant and Counter Claimant Elago to December 29, 2022.”	agree with court Rule 4(m) allows the court to extend the time for service for good cause. The court granted the extension as part of the order granting the motion for alternative service, which is a standard procedural accommodation.

What the court decided

The model

Motion for Court Directed Alternative Service Granted

“Thus, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Catalyst’s Motion as follows: 1. Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Catalyst shall serve copies of the summons complaint on Defendant and Counter Claimant Elago by alternative service via electronic mail to Elago’s United States based counsel, Ms. Sheila Mojtehedi at sheila@ mojtehedi.com;”

agree with court
The court applied the standard from Rio Properties, requiring that the method be reasonably calculated to provide notice. The order recites that Catalyst made diligent efforts under the Hague Service Convention and that the proposed method (email to U.S. counsel) is reasonably calculated to provide notice. This follows the legal requirements for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) and the Hague Convention.

Extension of Time to Complete Service

“2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court extends Plaintiff Counter Defendant Catalyst’s time to complete service of process on Defendant and Counter Claimant Elago to December 29, 2022.”

agree with court
Rule 4(m) allows the court to extend the time for service for good cause. The court granted the extension as part of the order granting the motion for alternative service, which is a standard procedural accommodation.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for alternative service under the Hague Convention and Rule 4(f)(3) by citing Rio Properties. It finds that the plaintiff made diligent efforts and that the proposed method is reasonably calculated to provide notice. The extension of time under Rule 4(m) is a standard procedural order accompanying the grant of the motion. The order is concise but contains all necessary elements for a valid ruling on this specific motion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CATALYST LIFESTYLE LIMITED, Case No.: 22cv536-LL-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. COURT DIRECTED ALTERNATIVE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT AND 14 ELAGO CO., LTD; and ELYEL COUNTER CLAIMANT ELAGO CO. CORPORATION, 15 LTD Defendants. 16 [ECF No. 24] 17 ELAGO CO., LTD; and ELYEL 18 CORPORATION, 19 Counter Claimants, 20 v. 21 CATALYST LIFESTYLE LIMITED, 22 Counter Defendant. 23 24 Before the Court is the Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Catalyst Lifestyle Limited’s 25 (“Catalyst”) Motion for Court Directed Alternative Service on Defendant and Counter 26 Claimant Elago Co., Ltd (“Elago”) (the “Motion”). ECF No. 24. The Motion is unopposed. 27 ECF No. 26. Having considered the Motion, the Court finds Catalyst has undertaken 28 diligent efforts to follow the steps identified in the Hague Service Convention and 1 ||personally serve Elago and that Catalyst’s proposed method of alternative service is 2 ||reasonably calculated to provide Elago with actual notice of this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. 3 ||P. 43); Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2002) 4 ||(the method of service “must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to 5 || apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to 6 || present their objections.’”). Thus, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Catalyst’s 7 || Motion as follows: 8 1. Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Catalyst shall serve copies of the summons 9 complaint on Defendant and Counter Claimant Elago by alternative service via 10 ||electronic mail to Elago’s United States based counsel, Ms. Sheila Mojtehedi at 11 || sheila@ mojtehedi.com; and 12 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court extends Plaintiff 13 Counter Defendant Catalyst’s time to complete service of process on Defendant and 14 || Counter Claimant Elago to December 29, 2022. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: November 29, 2022 NO 17 DE 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28