Timeless Production FZ LLC., A United Arab Emirates Limited Liability Company v. Husniddin Boboyev and John Doe Defendants 1-10 (Operators of Trending Farm US A/K/A Insider Trending TV and DYK Real Life)

Opinion

1 || Samie Law Firm 2414 S Garfield Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754 (818)-836-4976 3 Attorney for Plaintiff, Timeless Production FZ LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 TIMELESS PRODUCTION FZ LLC., A UNITED ARAB Case No.: 5:25-cv-07059-NW g EMIRATES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 9 Plaintiff, 10 V. 11 HUSNIDDIN BOBOYEV AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 12 (OPERATORS OF TRENDING 13 |} FARM US A/K/A_ INSIDER 14 TRENDING TV AND DYK REAL LIFE). 15 Defendant. 16 17 {PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 18 SERVICE 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for an order authorizing 20 alternate service of process on Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) 71 (ECF _) (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the supporting evidence, the 22 applicable law, and the record as a whole, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for the 23 reasons stated below. 24

] This is a copyright infringement action arising from Defendants’ alleged unauthorized 2 reproduction, alteration, redistribution, and monetized re-uploading of Plaintiff's copyrighted 3 || audiovisual works published on Plaintiff's YouTube channels, including Tekniq and Fluctus. 4 || Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, operating the YouTube channels “Trending Farm US” (also 5 || known as “Insider Trending TV”) and “DYK Real Life,” copied Plaintiff's content, removed 6 || or altered copyright-management information, and monetized the infringing videos through 7 || YouTube’s platform. 8 Defendants’ true physical address is unknown. Plaintiff submits evidence that a 9 || DMCA counter-notification was submitted under the name “Christopher Benitez” and did not 10 || provide a usable and verifiable physical address for service. Because Defendants’ address is not 11 || known, service through the Hague Service Convention is unavailable. Article 1 of the Hague 12 || Convention provides that the Convention does not apply where “the address of the person to be 13 || served with the document is not known.” Volkswagenwerk AG v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 700 14 || (1988). 15 Plaintiff seeks authorization to serve Defendants by electronic mail at 16 || boboyevhusniddin85@gmail.com and sofiaandreopoulou70@gmail.com. Plaintiff submits 17 || evidence that Google LLC produced subpoenaed records identifying these email addresses as 18 || channel-associated accounts used to access and administer the YouTube channels at issue. 19 | 1. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service of process upon 71 individuals located outside the United States. Rule 4(f)(3) authorizes a court to permit service 22 “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” The Rule 23 stands on equal footing with subsections 4(f)(1) and 4(f)(2), and district courts possess broad 24

1 || discretion to fashion alternative methods where traditional service is unavailable or 2 || impracticable. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 3 |} 2002). 4 The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 4(f)(3) imposes no hierarchy or sequential 5 || requirement; plaintiffs need not attempt Hague or foreign procedures before seeking leave to 6 || effect service electronically. Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1015. 7 To authorize service under Rule 4(f)(3), courts apply a two-step inquiry: (1) the 8 || proposed method must not be prohibited by international agreement; and (2) the method must 9 || be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016; Mullane 10 || v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). 11 Email service is widely accepted under Rule 4(f)(3), particularly where defendants 12 || operate online businesses, lack a verifiable physical address, and evidence confirms the 13 || defendant’s use of the email address to manage the online accounts at issue. See, e.g., 14 || Microsoft Corp. v. Goldah.com Network Tech. Co., 2017 WL 4536417, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15 11, 2017); Keck v. Alibaba.com, Inc., 2018 WL 3632160, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2018). 16 |] I. DISCUSSION 17 Defendants’ true address is unknown, and Plaintiff has submitted evidence that 18 the address information available through Defendants’ DMCA-related communications is 19 not usable for service. Under Article 1 of the Hague Service Convention, the Convention 20 does not apply where the address of the person to be served is not known. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 21 at 700. Courts have recognized that where a foreign defendant provides false, incomplete, or 22 unverifiable address information, Hague service is unavailable and alternative service is 23 24

1 appropriate. See, e.g., Chanel, Inc. v. Zhibing, 2010 WL 985286, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 2 17, 2010). 3 Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants conduct the alleged infringing 4 operations through monetized YouTube channels and rely on maintaining access to 5 functioning Google/YouTube accounts. Plaintiff's evidence includes Google’s subpoena 6 response identifying boboyevhusniddin85@gmail.com and 7 sofiaandreopoulou70@gmail.com as channel-associated email accounts used to access and 8 administer the channels at issue. Plaintiff also provided evidence of successful test 9 transmissions to these addresses, confirming deliverability and supporting the conclusion 10 that service to these addresses is likely to provide actual notice. 11 The Northern District of California requires documentation linking the 12 proposed service address to the defendant’s actual online account. Plaintiff has satisfied this 13 requirement through the evidentiary record submitted with the Motion, including 14 Defendants’ DMCA counter-notification materials and Google/YouTube subpoena 15 production identifying the relevant channel-associated email accounts. 16 Given Defendants’ failure to provide a reliable physical address, the absence 17 of an available Hague mechanism, Defendants’ exclusive reliance on online operations, and 18 the verified link between Defendants’ channel administration and the email addresses 19 identified above, service via email is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,” 20 to apprise Defendants of this action. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314; Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 21 1017. The Court finds that service by email is the method most likely to provide Defendants 22 with actual notice of this lawsuit. 23 24

1 ORDER 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is authorized to serve the Summons, Complaint, and all subsequent filings, motions, and discovery in this matter upon Defendant solely via email at:_ boboyevhusniddin85@gmail.com and sofiaandreopoulou70@gmail.com 4 Service shall be deemed complete upon transmission.

g | IT ISSO ORDERED DISTRI gy“! 9 || Dated: June 5, 2026 le; GRANTED 10 Ld < United States District Jude} [Wie 5 il \\\ jog 1S Northern District of Calit? 12 LOTSTRICE S

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24