CKR Law LLP v. Anderson Investments International, LLC
1:20-cv-07937
S.D.N.Y.Nov 10, 2020Background:
- Petitioner CKR Law LLP, former escrow agent in disputed transactions, filed to compel arbitration against Anderson, Intech, White Rock, Paramount, BMR, and individuals Rach (a.k.a. Edmund White), Namazbaeva, and Chakravarty after other parties alleged fraud.
- Petitioner submitted declarations identifying corporate roles and asserted residences/locations: Rach (principal/officer) and several companies linked to a Dubai office; Anderson and Paramount listed a Nevis address; Intech is in Hong Kong; Namazbaeva believed to be U.K.-resident and possibly associated with Five Stars Design Ltd.
- Clerk issued summonses; petitioner attempted service by FedEx, registered mail to Nevis, and email (including to last-known addresses and a WhatsApp message), but many deliveries failed or were returned undelivered.
- No respondents appeared at the initial pretrial conference; petitioner sought leave to serve by alternative means under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) and 4(h)(2); the motion was unopposed.
- The Court denied the motion without prejudice because petitioner did not explain why service under the Hague Convention or foreign/local law (Nevis/Dubai) would be prohibitively expensive or unduly delay the action, nor did it detail the nature/reasonableness of Hague-related efforts.
- The Court also flagged a due-process problem with petitioner’s proposed service on Namazbaeva via mail to Five Stars Design: the only evidence of association was a shared name on a corporate filing, which is insufficient without corroboration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should permit alternative service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) | Respondents are avoiding service; Hague/local methods would be time-consuming and expensive; thus email/FedEx/WhatsApp alternative service is needed | No opposing briefing (motion unopposed) | Denied without prejudice: petitioner failed to show why Hague or local methods are infeasible or that it reasonably attempted those methods; court intervention not yet justified |
| Whether service on Namazbaeva by mailing to Five Stars Design satisfies due process | Five Stars Design listing shows Namazbaeva as sole shareholder/officer/director, so mail to that company suffices | (No opposing briefing) | Likely inadequate: mere matching name on corporate filing is insufficient to show she is a high-ranking corporate agent for due-process service; needs corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- Stream SICAV v. Wang, 989 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (service on a high-level employee's corporate employer could comport with due process)