Dyer v. Ezeh et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MIN JI GOO DYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIKE EZEH, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01226-JCS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Re: Dkt. No. 109
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Min Ji Goo Dyer, after extensive efforts, has identified one of the Doe defendants
initially named in this case, Chike Ezeh, who is linked to a bitcoin account into which Plaintiff
was fraudulently induced to deposit funds. As the Court explained in its May 8, 2025 Order, the
account information Plaintiff obtained from a third party included an email address and a physical
address in Nigeria for Ezeh. See dkt. no. 91. The Court initially rejected Plaintiff’s request to
serve Ezeh at the email address because Plaintiff was unable to supply evidence that Ezeh used or
checked that email address. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff engaged a process server in Nigeria who
attempted to serve Ezeh at the physical address, which turned out to be a government building
rather than a residence. See dkt. no. 97 (process server affidavit and exhibits). The process server
conducted extensive research in an effort to locate and serve Ezeh but was unsuccessful. Id. A
logistics provider hired by the process server to investigate spoke to residents near the government
building, though some were reluctant to talk to him due to Ezeh’s “high social influence.” Id. He
learned that Ezeh owned a house behind the government building but apparently no longer lives
there. Id.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Alternative Service
Case 3:23-cv-01226-JCS Document 110 Filed 11/11/25 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
(“Motion”) seeking leave to serve Ezeh by serving the summons to the email address discussed
above and by publication in a Nigerian newspaper. The Court concludes that Ezeh cannot be
served by traditional means as Plaintiff, despite diligent efforts, has been unable locate him except
to establish generally that he resides in Nigeria. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion, as set
forth below.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) authorizes three methods for serving an individual in
a foreign country. First, an individual may be served at a place not within any judicial district of
the United States “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to
give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extrajudicial Documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). Second, “if there is no internationally
agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means[,]” the
individual may be served “by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice,” including “as
prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country,” “as the foreign authority
directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request,” or through personal delivery or mail
sent by the Clerk. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2). Finally, service may be effectuated “by other means not
prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).
There is no internationally agreed means of service available here because Nigeria is not a
signatory to the Hague Convention. See Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Arowokoko, No. 22-CV-00803-
DMR, 2022 WL 4099215, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2022) (Nigeria is not a party to the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents or any other treaty on
service of process to which the United States is party.”). Therefore, the Court considers whether
Ezeh may be served under Rule 4(f)(3).
“Service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a ‘last resort’ nor ‘extraordinary relief.’ . .
. It is merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international
defendant.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted). “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3),” however, the proposed means of service
“must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Id. at 1016. As a general rule, to
Case 3:23-cv-01226-JCS Document 110 Filed 11/11/25 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
satisfy the requirements of due process, “the method of service crafted by the district court must
be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” Id. at 1017
(quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).
But there is an exception to the requirement under Mullane that service must be reasonably
calculated to appraise the party of the pendency of the action:
This Court has not hesitated to approve of resort to publication as a
customary substitute in another class of cases where it is not
reasonably possible or practicable to give more adequate warning.
Thus it has been recognized that, in the case of persons missing
or unknown, employment of an indirect and even a probably
futile means of notification is all that the situation permits and
creates no constitutional bar to a final decree foreclosing their
rights. . . .
Those beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or
whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly
within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient.
However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of
such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely
to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to
prescribe the best notice practicable.
Mullane, 339 U.S. at 317 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
The Court concludes that this exception applies and that service by publication is
constitutionally permissible in this case because Ezeh is an “elusive” international defendant
alleged to have been involved in a sophisticate scam in which the participants have gone to great
effort to conceal their identities. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d at 1016
(“when RIO presented the district court with its inability to serve an elusive international
defendant, striving to evade service of process, the district court properly exercised its
discretionary powers to craft alternate means of service.”).
Further, the Court finds that the method of service by publication is consistent with the
requirements of both California law and Nigerian law. In particular, Plaintiff has supplied a
declaration from an attorney in Nigeria, Onyekachi W. Duru, who has “practiced as a litigator and
legal consultant on procedural issues concerning Nigerian law for over fifteen . . . years” and who
attests that “substituted service (including by advertisement in a national newspaper) is expressly
Case 3:23-cv-01226-JCS Document 110 Filed 11/11/25 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
recognized [under Nigerian law] where personal service is impracticable.” Dkt. no. 109-1
(Declaration of Onyekachi W. Duru, Esq.) (“Duru Decl.”) ¶¶ 1, 6-9; see also Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 415.50 (providing for service by publication where “it appears to the satisfaction of the
court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be
served in another manner specified in this article and that” “[a] cause of action exists against the
party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.”).
Mr. Duru also attests that the newspaper in which Plaintiff proposes to publish the notice,
Vanguard Newspaper, has “wide national circulation and prominence” in Nigeria and has a
“section where legal notices/summonses are routinely published, making it a standard form of
service-by- publication.” Duru Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50(b) (providing
that summons is to published in a “named newspaper . . . that is most likely to give actual notice to
the party to be served”).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to serve by alternative means. In particular,
Plaintiff shall have the summons and notice served by email to glee.fuller.og@gmail.com and by
publication in the Vanguard Newspaper.1 The summons and notice shall be published once a
week for four consecutive weeks in Vanguard Newspaper. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.50 (b)
(providing that service by publication shall be “made as provided by Section 6064 of the
Government Code unless the court, in its discretion, orders publication for a longer period”); Cal.
Gov. Code § 6064 (specifying that service by publication “shall be once a week for four
successive weeks”). Service will be considered complete upon filing with this Court an affidavit
of publication supplied by Plaintiff’s attorney in Nigeria. See Duru Decl. ¶ 11(c). Service by
publication in Nigeria shall commence within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The
affidavit of publication shall be filed within (30) days of the last date on which the summons is
published in Vanguard Newspaper.
1 Plaintiff need not, however, obtain a court order from a Nigerian Court permitting service by
publication. Rather, it is sufficient that the proposed service be carried out in a manner that is
generally consistent with Nigerian law by a licensed Nigerian attorney (presumably Mr. Duru).
Case 3:23-cv-01226-JCS Document 110 Filed 11/11/25 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
III. CONCLUSION
The Motion is GRANTED. The Case Management Conference scheduled for December
17, 2025 is continued to March 25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. to be conducted by Zoom webinar, id. 161
926 0804, password 050855.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 11, 2025
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01226-JCS Document 110 Filed 11/11/25 Page 5 of 5