Ferrarese v. Shaw, 164 F. Supp. 3d 361

Petitioner (Giovanni Ferrarese) filed a Hague Convention/ICARA action seeking return of his child and custody rights; he began the action on June 26, 2015.
Multiple attempts at traditional service failed: process servers visited prior addresses, encountered a hostile sister who refused service, and private investigators/skip-traces could not locate the defendant, who appears to use multiple names (Vinda Shaw / Maima Dassin / Tata Shaw).
Petitioner located online accounts and an email (tatashaw@gmail.com) allegedly linked to the defendant and mailed copies of process to the defendant’s last known address and the Clerk.
Petitioner moved for leave to effect alternative service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) and N.Y. CPLR § 308(5), proposing certified mail, email to tatashaw@gmail.com, and a Facebook message to the Tata Shaw account.
The court found traditional service impracticable because the defendant actively evaded location and petitioner had undertaken multiple investigatory efforts.
The court authorized alternate service, but required a combination: certified mail (return receipt requested) to the defendant’s last known address and to her sister at that address, plus email to tatashaw@gmail.com and a Facebook message to the Tata Shaw account; allowed future filings to be served by these methods.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether traditional methods of service are practicable	Service attempts failed; defendant changed names and evades detection	(Implicit) Traditional methods should be required	Traditional service is impracticable given diligent searches and evasion; alternate service permitted
Whether email alone satisfies due process	Email to tatashaw@gmail.com likely reaches defendant based on linked social accounts	Email usage by defendant not proven with sufficient certainty	Email allowed but not as sole method; must be combined with other methods
Whether Facebook message is a constitutional method of service	Facebook message will notify defendant when combined with other methods	Unclear that the Facebook account is maintained by defendant; novel method may fail to notify	Facebook message permitted only as part of multi-method service, not alone
Appropriate scope of alternate service under CPLR § 308(5) and Rule 4(e)	Request combined service (certified mail, email, Facebook) to avoid delay	(Implicit) Must meet Mullane due-process standard; show likelihood of notice	Court orders certified mail to last known address and sister, plus email and Facebook message; future filings may be served same way

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (establishes due-process standard for notice: reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Leab v. Streit, 584 F. Supp. 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (permitting service by delivery to relatives as proper alternate service)
Markoff v. South Nassau Cmty. Hosp., 91 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983) (discussing impracticability standard for alternate service under CPLR)