USCA11 Case: 23-11881 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11881 ____________________ SAREGAMA INDIA, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SUBRAMANIAN AIYER, et al.,

Defendants,

BHRATH AIYER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11881 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2024 Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM: This appeal concerns Saregama India Ltd.’s attempt to col- lect against Bharath Aiyer 1 in 2021 after receiving a default judg- ment totaling $11,120,000 against Aiyer and his family a decade ear- lier. In June 2009, Saregama, an Indian music company, brought a copyright lawsuit against ASV Cyber Solutions, Inc., a corporation founded by Bharath’s father, Subramanian. Saregama believed ASV was responsible for MusicIndiaOnline.com, a platform used to illegally stream music with copyrights held by Saregama. The complaint named Bharath Aiyer, Subramanian Aiyer, Anand Aiyer (Bharath’s brother), ASV, and several others as defendants in the action.

Before filing the action, Saregama sent several pre-litigation demands to Bharath (and his father). Bharath responded by email months later, acknowledging receipt of Saregama’s demands but disavowing any connection to MusicIndiaOnline. Bharath blocked

USCA11 Case: 23-11881 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2024 Page: 3 of 4

23-11881 Opinion of the Court 3 further communications from Saregama. Saregama subsequently filed suit.

When the initial lawsuit was brought in the Northern Dis- trict of Georgia, none of the defendants lived in the United States, but ASV allegedly maintained an Atlanta mailing address.

Saregama’s initial attempts to serve defendants pursuant to the Hague Convention failed. So in April 2011, upon evidence of the parties’ pre-suit correspondence and ASV’s suspected physical ad- dress, the district court entered an order permitting service by elec- tronic mail, including at the email address Bharath had used to re- spond to Seragama’s pre-litigation demands, and by priority mail.

Saregama served the Aiyer family members, but none responded.

Upon Saregama’s motion, which Saregama served on the Ai- yer family members by electronic mail and by priority mail, the clerk entered default against the defendants. In September 2011, the district court entered a default judgment in favor of Saregama against the three named members of the Aiyer family jointly and severally, totaling $11,120,000. The district court permanently en- joined the Aiyers from future infringement. The action was dis- missed against the remaining defendants—including ASV— without prejudice for Saregama’s failure to effect service of pro- cess. The monetary judgment was not satisfied.

In 2019, Bharath moved to California. Bharath claims that he was not aware that a suit had ever been initiated prior to his move. In July 2021, Saregama served Bharath with a petition for a writ of scire facias seeking to collect on the 2011 default judgment.

USCA11 Case: 23-11881 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2024 Page: 4 of 4

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the rea- sons given in the district court’s May 8, 2023, order in favor of Saregama.

AFFIRMED.