United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE
William J. Martinez United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Adscend Media
LLC's (Plaintiff, or "Adscend") Motion to
Extend Temporary Restraining Order and for Alternative
Service of Summons and Complaint (ECF No. 15 (the
"Motion")), along with Adscend's Memorandum in
Support (ECF No. 16), the supporting Declarations (ECF Nos.
16-1 & 16-2), and Adscend's previously-filed Status
Report as to Service, together with its supporting materials
(ECF Nos. 14, 14-1, 14-2), all of which pertain to effecting
service of process upon Defendants, including service of the
Court's previously-entered Temporary Restraining Order
("TRO") (ECF No. 12), which the Court has extended
by prior order (ECF No. 17).
SERVICE VIA E-MAIL AND/OR TEXT
requests that the Court permit it to effectuate service of
the Summons and the Complaint upon Defendant Klose (and,
through her, upon Defendant D.K.) by means of e-mail and by
sending Ms. Klose via text message a link to a website at
which the summons and complaint have been posted.
(See ECF No. 16 at 4.)
does not cite any federal rule, statute, or other authority
authorizing service of process by such means. To the
contrary, Rule 4(e) provides that "[u]nless federal law
provides otherwise, " individuals living in a judicial
district of the United States may be served a Summons by the
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action
brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where
the district court is located or where service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
the individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling
or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). This provision does not contemplate
"alternative service" or service via electronic
mans, as proposed by Adscend.
cites Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Sheng Gan, 2012
WL 122862, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 17, 2012) and United
States v. The Pub. Warehousing Co., 2017 WL 661580, at
*2 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 17, 2017). Both of these cases addressed
service on defendants in foreign countries, a situation
specifically addressed by Rule 4(f), but not relevant here.
See Blumedia Inc. v. Sordid Ones BV, 2011 WL 42296,
at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2011) ("if the Court assumes
that Defendants are located within the United States,
Plaintiffs Motion [seeking service by e-mail] must be
does not specifically argue for allowing service
"following state law, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1), nor
invoke Colorado's provisions for "substituted
service, " as set out in Colorado Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(f). Moreover, such "substituted service,
" even when allowed, provides only for service "to
be mailed to the address(es) of the party."
C.R.C.P. 4(f)(2) (emphasis added). Here, the materials filed
with Adscend's motion indicate that Defendants have moved
away from their last known address and Adscend has not shown
that mailing the Summons to any other address would be
"reasonably calculated to give actual notice."
C.R.C.P. 4(f). Given these circumstances, and in light of the
mandatory service of the TRO provided by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4.1(a) and addressed below, the Court does
not at this time authorize any "substituted
service" under C.R.C.P. 4(f), nor take up the question
of whether that rule can ever authorize service via e-mail.
since no provision of either Colorado or federal law provides
for the relief that Adscend requests, ...