Cordova v. Huneault
5:25-cv-04685
N.D. Cal.Sep 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Christopher J. Cordova (Colorado resident, creator of YouTube channel “Denver Metro Audits”) sues defendants Jonathan Huneault and Nneka Ohiri (allegedly resident in Canada; operators of “Frauditor Troll Channel”) for copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501) and for false statements in DMCA counter-notices (17 U.S.C. § 512(f)).
- Defendants’ DMCA counter-notices included Huneault’s name, a New York physical address, and the email frauditortroll@gmail.com; plaintiff alleges the New York address is fake.
- Plaintiff could not effectuate service at the New York address and received no email response to requests to waive service; defendants have not appeared.
- Plaintiff moved ex parte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) for court-authorized alternative service by email on Huneault, Ohiri, and on non-party attorney Patrick J. D’Arcy.
- Google records (via subpoena) linked defendants’ Google AdSense billing profile to frauditortroll@gmail.com and to 125 Stewart Crescent, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Ontario L3Z 0T3, Canada.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(f)(3) permits court-ordered service by email on defendants in Canada | Cordova: email to frauditortroll@gmail.com is reasonably calculated to provide notice and is authorized under Rule 4(f)(3) | Defendants: (no response/appearance) — no live defense to the application | Court: Permits service by email under Rule 4(f)(3) when combined with other steps; court-directed email not prohibited by Hague Convention |
| Whether the Hague Service Convention bars email service | Cordova: Canada has not objected to Article 10; prior N.D. Cal. decisions allow email when court-directed | Defendants: (no argument presented) | Court: Hague does not bar court-directed email service; prior district decisions persuasive |
| Whether plaintiff can serve via other email addresses linked to defendants | Cordova: multiple email addresses associated with related channels should be used | Defendants: (no response) | Court: Limits authorized email service to frauditortroll@gmail.com only |
| Whether service on non-party attorney D’Arcy suffices as alternative service on defendants | Cordova: D’Arcy engaged by filing motion for leave to file amicus and discussed the case with defendants; thus service on him would notify defendants | D’Arcy/Defendants: D’Arcy never appeared or litigated on defendants’ behalf; he does not represent them | Court: Denies service on D’Arcy; not reasonably calculated to notify defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 4(f)(3) permits court-directed alternative service and requires only that it not be prohibited by international agreement and that it satisfy due process)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Buy More, Inc., [citation="703 F. App'x 476"] (9th Cir. 2017) (alternative service on counsel may be authorized where counsel has litigated the case on defendant’s behalf)
Order: Plaintiff may serve the complaint and summons on Huneault and Ohiri by email to frauditortroll@gmail.com, but if he elects email service he must also send the complaint and summons by certified mail to 125 Stewart Crescent, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Ontario L3Z 0T3, Canada. Plaintiff must file proof of service by September 30, 2025.