1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MIN JI GOO DYER, 7 Case No. 23-cv-01226-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 ALTERNATIVE SERVICE CHIKE EZEH, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 109 Defendants. 11

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Min Ji Goo Dyer, after extensive efforts, has identified one of the Doe defendants 15 initially named in this case, Chike Ezeh, who is linked to a bitcoin account into which Plaintiff 16 was fraudulently induced to deposit funds. As the Court explained in its May 8, 2025 Order, the 17 account information Plaintiff obtained from a third party included an email address and a physical 18 address in Nigeria for Ezeh. See dkt. no. 91. The Court initially rejected Plaintiff’s request to 19 serve Ezeh at the email address because Plaintiff was unable to supply evidence that Ezeh used or 20 checked that email address. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff engaged a process server in Nigeria who 21 attempted to serve Ezeh at the physical address, which turned out to be a government building 22 rather than a residence. See dkt. no. 97 (process server affidavit and exhibits). The process server 23 conducted extensive research in an effort to locate and serve Ezeh but was unsuccessful. Id. A 24 logistics provider hired by the process server to investigate spoke to residents near the government 25 building, though some were reluctant to talk to him due to Ezeh’s “high social influence.” Id. He 26 learned that Ezeh owned a house behind the government building but apparently no longer lives 27 there. Id. 1 (“Motion”) seeking leave to serve Ezeh by serving the summons to the email address discussed 2 above and by publication in a Nigerian newspaper. The Court concludes that Ezeh cannot be 3 served by traditional means as Plaintiff, despite diligent efforts, has been unable locate him except 4 to establish generally that he resides in Nigeria. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion, as set 5 forth below. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) authorizes three methods for serving an individual in 8 a foreign country. First, an individual may be served at a place not within any judicial district of 9 the United States “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to 10 give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 11 and Extrajudicial Documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). Second, “if there is no internationally 12 agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means[,]” the 13 individual may be served “by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice,” including “as 14 prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country,” “as the foreign authority 15 directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request,” or through personal delivery or mail 16 sent by the Clerk. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2). Finally, service may be effectuated “by other means not 17 prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 18 There is no internationally agreed means of service available here because Nigeria is not a 19 signatory to the Hague Convention. See Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Arowokoko, No. 22-CV-00803- 20 DMR,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2022) (Nigeria is not a party to the Hague 21 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents or any other treaty on 22 service of process to which the United States is party.”). Therefore, the Court considers whether 23 Ezeh may be served under Rule 4(f)(3). 24 “Service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a ‘last resort’ nor ‘extraordinary relief.’ . . 25 . It is merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international 26 defendant.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citation 27 omitted). “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3),” however, the proposed means of service 1 satisfy the requirements of due process, “the method of service crafted by the district court must 2 be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the 3 pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ”

at 1017 4 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

(1950)). 5 But there is an exception to the requirement under Mullane that service must be reasonably 6 calculated to appraise the party of the pendency of the action: 7 This Court has not hesitated to approve of resort to publication as a customary substitute in another class of cases where it is not 8 reasonably possible or practicable to give more adequate warning. Thus it has been recognized that, in the case of persons missing 9 or unknown, employment of an indirect and even a probably futile means of notification is all that the situation permits and 10 creates no constitutional bar to a final decree foreclosing their rights. . . . 11 Those beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or 12 whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. 13 However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely 14 to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. 15 16 Mullane,

(citations omitted) (emphasis added). 17 The Court concludes that this exception applies and that service by publication is 18 constitutionally permissible in this case because Ezeh is an “elusive” international defendant 19 alleged to have been involved in a sophisticate scam in which the participants have gone to great 20 effort to conceal their identities. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,

21 (“when RIO presented the district court with its inability to serve an elusive international 22 defendant, striving to evade service of process, the district court properly exercised its 23 discretionary powers to craft alternate means of service.”). 24 Further, the Court finds that the method of service by publication is consistent with the 25 requirements of both California law and Nigerian law. In particular, Plaintiff has supplied a 26 declaration from an attorney in Nigeria, Onyekachi W. Duru, who has “practiced as a litigator and 27 legal consultant on procedural issues concerning Nigerian law for over fifteen . . . years” and who 1 recognized [under Nigerian law] where personal service is impracticable.” Dkt. no. 109-1 2 (Declaration of Onyekachi W. Duru, Esq.) (“Duru Decl.”) ¶¶ 1, 6-9; see also Cal. Civ. Proc. 3 Code § 415.50 (providing for service by publication where “it appears to the satisfaction of the 4 court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be 5 served in another manner specified in this article and that” “[a] cause of action exists against the 6 party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.”). 7 Mr. Duru also attests that the newspaper in which Plaintiff proposes to publish the notice, 8 Vanguard Newspaper, has “wide national circulation and prominence” in Nigeria and has a 9 “section where legal notices/summonses are routinely published, making it a standard form of 10 service-by- publication.” Duru Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; see also

(b) (providing 11 that summons is to published in a “named newspaper . . . that is most likely to give actual notice to 12 the party to be served”). 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to serve by alternative means. In particular, 14 Plaintiff shall have the summons and notice served by email to [email protected] and by 15 publication in the Vanguard Newspaper.1 The summons and notice shall be published once a 16 week for four consecutive weeks in Vanguard Newspaper. See

(b) 17 (providing that service by publication shall be “made as provided by Section 6064 of the 18 Government Code unless the court, in its discretion, orders publication for a longer period”); Cal. 19 Gov. Code § 6064 (specifying that service by publication “shall be once a week for four 20 successive weeks”). Service will be considered complete upon filing with this Court an affidavit 21 of publication supplied by Plaintiff’s attorney in Nigeria. See Duru Decl. ¶ 11(c). Service by 22 publication in Nigeria shall commence within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The 23 affidavit of publication shall be filed within (30) days of the last date on which the summons is 24 published in Vanguard Newspaper. 25 26

27 1 Plaintiff need not, however, obtain a court order from a Nigerian Court permitting service by 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 The Motion is GRANTED. The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 3 17, 2025 is continued to March 25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. to be conducted by Zoom webinar, id. 161 4 926 0804, password 050855. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: November 11, 2025 3 J PH C. SPERO 9 nited States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

41

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28