1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jeremy RYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-2348-AGS-BLM

4 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 5 MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE v. SERVICE (ECF 19) 6

7 BEST IN SLOT, LLC FZ, 8 Defendant. 9 Plaintiff Jeremy Ryan, proceeding without an attorney and in forma pauperis, seeks 10 permission to serve defendant through alternative means. (See ECF 19.) Generally, the 11 Federal Rules require specific means to serve a would-be international defendant, but a 12 catch-all provision allows service, with court approval, on a defendant “not within any 13 judicial district of the United States” by any “other means not prohibited by international 14 agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Based on that provision, Ryan requests that this Court 15 authorize electronic service on defendant. Ryan is aware that defendant is an international 16 company, and he has been unable, despite diligent record searches, to determine its 17 physical address.1 (See ECF 19-2, at 4–5.) 18 Specifically, he wishes to use email and other electronic means to serve defendants 19 by: 20 1. Email to [email protected] and any other publicly listed official contact 21 email on bestinslot.xyz. 22 2. Support ticket on the Discord account linked from bestinslot.xyz as long 23 as Plaintiff is not suspended from such. 24 25 1 “[T]he Hague Service Convention does not apply where the address of the person 26 to be served is unknown.” Dongguan Zhouda Tech. v. Dai, No. 2:25-CV-00536-TL, 27

, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2025). For Hague Convention purposes, an “address is unknown if obtaining a physical address for service of process was not found 28 l 3. If available, submission via any official website contact form. 2 4. Upon disclosure of any physical address, follow-up service by 3 international courier. 4 (ECF 19-2, at 3.) He also represents that defendant “transact[s] primarily online” and > “publicly hold[s] out specific electronic channels for contact.” (/d.) 6 Ryan’s request is GRANTED IN PART. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,

(9th Cir. 2002) (holding that plaintiff “need not have attempted 8 every permissible means of service of process before petitioning the court for alternative relief’ such as “email” service, so long as “the method selected be reasonably calculated 10 to provide notice and an opportunity to respond”). Ryan may serve defendants through the identified email address: [email protected]. Ryan must also make his best efforts to 12 identify at least two more email addresses associated with defendant. He must provide 13 those addresses, along with this order, to the United States Marshal for execution of service. M4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (requiring “service be made by a United States marshal or 15 deputy marshal” for plaintiffs “authorized to proceed in forma pauperis”). Also, the 16 U.S. Marshal must include a copy of this Order with its service of Ryan’s complaint. iM Dated: December 19, 2025

19 Andrew G. Schopler 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 a oe