The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 31, 2025
Docket3:24-cv-03104
StatusUnknown

This text of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family (The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA, Case No. 24-cv-03104-MMC

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING 10 HILLS EXPLORATION ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF CORPORATION, et al., SERVICE 11 Respondents. 12

13 Before the Court is petitioner The Republic of Nicaragua's ("Nicaragua") "Motion 14 for Order Permitting Alternative Method of Service of Summons and Amended Petition," 15 filed November 19, 2024, as corrected November 20, 2024. No response to the Motion 16 has been filed. Having read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 17 In its Amended Petition ("AP"), Nicaragua seeks to "enforce the [r]espondents' 18 pecuniary obligations imposed by a March 1, 2023 arbitral award ('Award') issued under 19 the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals 20 of Other States." (See AP ¶ 1.) Specifically, in the Award, the arbitration tribunal ruled 21 against respondents, who had brought claims against Nicaragua, and awarded 22 Nicaragua "its costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500,000." (See AP ¶¶ 12-13, 18.) 23 By the instant motion, Nicaragua seeks leave, pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve the summons and a copy of the AP on the 25 following three respondents in the following proposed manner: (1) serving respondent 26 27 1 David Michael Goyne ("David Goyne") by email; (2) serving respondent Emily Lopez 2 Goyne ("Emily Goyne") by email; and (3) and serving respondent Michael David Goyne 3 ("Michael Goyne") by WhatsApp, a telephone message application. 4 Rule 4(f) provides as follows:

5 (f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides 6 otherwise, an individual --other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed -- may be served at a place not within any judicial 7 district of the United States:

8 (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague 9 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; 10 (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international 11 agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice: 12 (A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that 13 country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction; 14 (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or 15 letter of request; or

16 (C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:

17 (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to 18 the individual personally; or

19 (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or 20 (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court 21 orders. 22 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). 23 As noted, Rule 4(f) sets forth the manner in which a person may be served "at a 24 place not within any judicial district in the United States," i.e., a place "in a Foreign 25 Country." See id. Here, Nicaragua has offered evidence that David Goyne lived at a 26 specified address in Hawaii until June 2020 (see Trujillo Decl. Ex. 3), and that Emily 27 Goyne and Michael Goyne lived at a specified address in Hawaii until April 2024 (see id. 1 Exs. 1-2). In an effort to show that each of those respondents thereafter moved to a 2 foreign country, counsel for Nicaragua states, in a declaration, that, on or about August 1, 3 2024, counsel for some of the other respondents "conveyed to [counsel for Nicaragua] 4 that [David Goyne and Emily Goyne] are believed to live abroad in the Philippines and 5 that [Michael Goyne] is believed to live abroad in Guatemala." (See id. ¶ 8.) No showing 6 has been made, however, to establish the basis for such beliefs. Consequently, the 7 Court finds Nicaragua has not sufficiently shown any of said three respondents resides 8 outside of the United States. 9 Moreover, even assuming those three respondents reside outside of the United 10 States, service under Rule 4(f)(3) is appropriate only "when the particularities and 11 necessities of [the] case require alternative service." See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio 12 International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 In that regard, where requests under Rule 4(f)(3) seek leave to serve by email, 14 district courts "generally require a showing service by email is necessary[,] for example, 15 because the defendant's physical address is not known," see Astral IP Enterprise Ltd., 16 2023 WL 5498730, at *2 (N.D. Cal. August 23, 2023), and/or there is evidence the 17 defendant is attempting to "evade" service, see Rubie's Costume Co. v. Yiwu Hua Hao 18 Toys Co., 2019 WL 6310564, at *3 (W.D. Wash. November 25, 2019). Here, however, 19 Nicaragua does not contend it has made any attempt to locate a physical address for 20 David Goyne and Emily Goyne in the Philippines or for Michael Goyne in Guatemala, or 21 that any respondent is evading service.2 22 Where requests under Rule 4(f)(3) seek leave to serve by use of WhatsApp, 23 courts that have approved service in such manner have done so "as a backdrop for 24 service for other means," e.g., where service also occurs by publication or by email, see 25 Kumar v. Alhunaif, 2023 WL 8527671, at *5 (S.D. N.Y. December 8, 2023) (citing cases; 26 2 Wherever David Goyne, Emily Goyne, and Michael Goyne may have moved after 27 they vacated their respective former residences in Hawaii, they did so before the instant 1 internal quotation and citation omitted), or where prior attempts to serve by other means 2 prove ineffectual, see, e.g., Hunt v. Aslam, 2023 WL 3510961, at *2 (D. Utah May 17, 3 2023) (finding service by WhatsApp appropriate in light of plaintiff's prior unsuccessful 4 efforts to serve defendant "personally, by mail, and by email"). Nicaragua has cited no 5 case, and the Court has not located one, finding service by WhatsApp or a similar service 6 was appropriate under Rule 4(f)(3), in the absence of any prior attempt to serve the 7 defendant by other means authorized under Rule 4(f) or a showing that such attempt 8 would be futile.3 9 Lastly, a plaintiff seeking an order allowing alternative forms of service must show 10 the use of the particular manner of service, i.e., the specific email or WhatsApp account, 11 would be "reasonably calculated to apprise [the party to be served] of the pendency of 12 the action and afford it an opportunity to respond." See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1017. 13 With respect to email addresses, courts have found such showing is made where 14 the plaintiff has "verifie[d] the email address and demonstrate[d] its current functionality," 15 see Mighty Dreams LLC v. Shenzhen Beianen Automotive Supplies Co., 2024 WL 16 4979863, at *2 (W.D. Wash. December 4, 2024) (citing cases), such as, for example, 17 where "email validation services" had established the subject emails are "operational," 18 see Kumar, 2023 WL 8527671, at *4, or where "investigators sent test messages to 19 [defendants]" and all defendants "responded to the test messages," see Keck v. 20 Alibaba.com, Inc., 2017 WL 10820533, at *1, *3 (N.D. Cal. December 20, 2017). With 21 respect to WhatsApp, courts have found a sufficient showing was made where, for 22 example, WhatsApp "confirmed" the defendant had an "active" account that had been 23 3 St.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-republic-of-nicaragua-v-the-lopez-goyne-family-cand-2025.