United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE
Raymond P. Moore, United States District Judge.
matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Status
Report regarding Service by EMail (ECF No. 40) filed in
response to the Court's Order of April 30, 2019 (ECF No.
39) which raised concerns about the sufficiency of service in
this case in which Plaintiff seeks a default judgment. The
Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant, in part,
default judgment in favor of Plaintiff is premised on the
proposition that service of process via email to two email
addresses (email@example.com and
firstname.lastname@example.org) comports with
the Hague Convention and with due process. Upon review of the
Status Report, and further review of the court record and
applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court
finds the service of process on Defendant Polishsys
Technologies is sufficient but that service of process on
Defendants Chitranshu Singh and Chandresh Singh should be
supplemented via email to their individual addresses.
process and the Hague Convention.
elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any
proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice
reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). See also M.A.K.
Investment Group, LLC v. City of Glendale, 897 F.3d
1303, 1312 (10th Cir. 2018) (same). “The notice must be
of such nature as reasonably to convey the required
information, … and it must afford a reasonable time
for those interested to make their appearance.”
Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. “But if with due
regard for the practicalities and peculiarities of the case
these conditions are reasonably met the constitutional
requirements are satisfied.” Id. at 314-15.
the Hague Convention, service by email is not among the means
listed in Article 10 to which India objects. And, as the
Magistrate Judge recognized, several courts have held that
service by email does not violate any international agreement
where the objections of the recipient nation are limited to
those means enumerated in Article 10. And, here, the
Court's research fails to show that India has
specifically objected to service via this method.
Accordingly, “in contemporary terms, ” M.A.K.
Investment Group, LLC, 897 F.3d at 1312 (finding that
direct notice of adverse action required by due process,
“[i]n contemporary terms, … [meant] notice had
to be mailed, emailed, or personally served), the Court finds
that service may be had via email.
on Defendant Polishsys Technologies.
record confirms that email@example.com is the
email address for Defendant Polishsys Technologies; Plaintiff
provided notice of this lawsuit to Defendants via this email;
and this notice was apparently forwarded to their counsel
Piyush Shrivastava and Associates, who then had
communications with Plaintiff's counsel concerning the
matter. On this record, the Court finds that service of
process via firstname.lastname@example.org, coupled with
service via email to counsel, is sufficient. The Court is
mindful that Piyush Shrivastava and Associates did not state
it had authority to accept service on Defendants' behalf,
and is not finding that service on counsel (without more) is
sufficient. Instead, in this instance, service is
supplemented through counsel who affirmatively reached out to
Plaintiff with more than one communication concerning this
lawsuit. Accordingly, service here is sufficient.
on Defendants Chitranshu Singh and Chandresh Singh.
sufficiency of service on these individual defendants via the
corporate email email@example.com and email to
counsel is another matter. The Court is not convinced, on the
current record, that such service, standing alone, is
sufficient. First, firstname.lastname@example.org is not
the email address for either of these individual defendants.
Further, as stated in the Court's April 30, 2019 Order,
Plaintiff alleges only Defendant Chandresh Singh is a
director of Defendant Polishsys Technologies. Nevertheless,
Plaintiff has sufficiently shown there are two known email
addresses for these individual defendants:
Pratapiseo786@gmail.com. As such, the Court finds
service of process on the Singh defendants should be had via
these email addresses, in addition to the other methods
Plaintiff previously used. Accordingly, such service is
it is ORDERED that
Plaintiff shall serve all papers via email to Defendants
Chitranshu Singh at email@example.com;
and to Chandresh Singh at Pratapiseo786@gmail.com;
Such service shall also include a copy of this Order
Plaintiff shall file a return of service showing such service
via email was made; and
Defendants Chitranshu Singh and Chandresh Singh fail to
respond within 21 days of service, the entry of default may
be upheld against them and the Court may thereafter ...