Rapport et al. v. Chapiro

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NATHAN RAPPORT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL CHAPIRO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-2071
JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN
PART MAGISTRATE’S ORDER (ECF
NO. 24)
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Nathan Rapport and Raidan Industries, Inc.’s Objection to
Magistrate Judge Reuben Sheperd’s March 30, 2026 Order Denying Motion for Alternative
Service. (ECF No. 25). Judge Sheperd’s Order denied Plaintiffs renewed request for alternative
service by either email or publication (ECF No. 23). (ECF No. 24). The Order also noted that
Plaintiffs had until March 30, 2026 to perfect service on Defendants and warned that a failure to
do so would risk a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice. (Id. at PageID #1076). The
Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for alternative service (ECF No. 23),
Magistrate Judge Sheperd’s Order (ECF No. 24), and Plaintiffs’ Objection (ECF No. 25),
AFFIRMS the Order IN PART and REMANDS this matter for further consideration.
Parties may object to an order issued by a magistrate judge regarding non-dispositive
matters, and a district judge must consider timely objections. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s determinations only “where
it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Case: 1:25-cv-02071-CEF Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/30/26 1 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

2
I. 	First Objection – Service by Email
Plaintiffs’ first objection is that Magistrate Judge Sheperd’s rejection of their request to
permit service by email is clearly erroneous. (ECF No. 25, PageID #1078–82). Plaintiffs moved
for alternative service by email under Fed. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), citing cases in the Northern District of
Ohio and other federal districts where courts have authorized email on a foreign defendant. (ECF
No. 23, PageID #1028–30). 1 Magistrate Judge Sheperd rejected Plaintiffs’ request for service by
email after finding that: (i) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for service of
process by email; (ii) Ohio does not permit service of process by email; and (iii) the cases cited by
Plaintiff, and similar cases, are distinguishable because Defendant is a natural person and not a
business with no apparent physical presence and an unknown physical address (relevant facts and
circumstances present in these other cases). (ECF No. 24, PageID #1073–75).
Plaintiffs argue that Magistrate Judge Shepard’s order is erroneous because service by
email is permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), which allows service on an individual not within
any judicial district of the United States “by means not prohibited by international agreement”—
including service by email. (ECF No. 25, PageID #1079–82). The Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument
unavailing because he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant is “an
individual in a foreign country” such that Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) applies. The only evidence Plaintiffs
provide is a sworn declaration from Plaintiffs’ attorney stating that “internet searches of available
records associated with Defendant demonstrate his continuous travel across multiple foreign
jurisdictions-including Canada, Mexico, El Salvador, Argentina, and the United Kingdom-during
the period of Plaintiffs’ attempted service.” 	(ECF No. 23-3, PageID #1062, ¶ 4). 	Without any
1 Plaintiffs cite the following cases from the Northern District of Ohio: (i) Order, GeLab Cosmetics LLC v. DeRhodes,
No. 4:25-cv-01234 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2025); (ii) Noco Co. v. Zhejiang. Quingyou Elec. Com. Co., 338 F.R.D. 100
(N.D. Ohio 2021).
Case: 1:25-cv-02071-CEF Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/30/26 2 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

3
corroborating evidence, the Court finds this insufficient to establish that Defendant is an individual
in a foreign country. 	Moreover, even taking the sworn statement at face value, it does not
demonstrate that Defendant is currently in a foreign country or will be in the near future (as the
declaration merely states he was out of the country “during the period of Plaintiffs’ attempted
service”).
Given the record before the Court, Plaintiffs’ attempts to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) as a
basis 	for 	alternative 	service 	are 	unsupported 	and 	misplaced. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ first objection and AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Sheperd’s denial of
service by email.
II. 	Second Objection – Service by Publication
Plaintiffs’ second objection is that Magistrate Judge Sheperd’s rejection of their request to
permit service by publication is clearly erroneous. (ECF No. 25, PageID #1082–84). Plaintiffs
moved for alternative service by publication under Fed. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), which permits federal
courts to borrow Ohio’s procedural rules, and Ohio Civ. R. 4.4(A)(1), which “authorizes service
by publication when the defendant’s residence cannot be discovered with reasonable diligence.”
(ECF No. 23, PageID #1030–31). Magistrate Judge Sheperd rejected Plaintiffs’ request for service
by publication providing the following analysis:
Ohio Revised Code Section 2703.14 likewise sets forth those cases where service
by publication is authorized. 	But neither Ohio civil rules nor Ohio law permits
service by publication on an out-of-state defendant in a civil action such as this.
The types of cases permitting service by publication are either divorce and child
custody cases (Ohio Civil Rule 4.4(2)(a)), cases involving real property (e.g.,
O.R.C. 	§§ 	2703.14(A)-(D), 	(I)), 	trust 	and 	probate 	cases 	(e.g., 	id. 	at
§§ 2703.14(E)-(F)), 	or 	in 	cases 	requesting 	post-judgment 	relief 	(id. 	at
§ 2703.14(K)). The only provision permitting service by publication on a person
who is avoiding service is when the person is an Ohio resident but has moved
counties. Id. at § 2703.14(L) (“In an action in which the defendant, being a resident
of this state, has departed from the county of his residence with intent to delay or
Case: 1:25-cv-02071-CEF Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/30/26 3 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

4
defraud his creditors or to avoid the service of a summons, or keeps himself
concealed with a similar intent.”).
This case is not the type that Ohio law allows for alternative service by publication.
And even though Chapiro may be evading service, he is not alleged to have ever
been an Ohio resident, and thus does not fall within Ohio’s law or civil rules for
service by publication. 	Id.; see also Ohio Civ. R. 4.4. 	And other Ohio rules
comport with this premise: Ohio Civil Rule 4.3, which governs process for out-of-
state defendants, provide for only two methods of service: either service by the
clerk or by personal service. Ohio R. Civ. P. 4.3(B). 	Service by publication is
therefore unavailable for this case based on its subject matter, or on Chapiro as an
out-of-state defendant. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
(ECF No. 24, PageID #1075–76).
Plaintiffs argue that Magistrate Judge Shepard’s denial is erroneous because: (i) he solely
focuses on Ohio Rev. Code § 2703.14(L) and overlooks another applicable provision—
§ 2703.14(I); and (ii) Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) can provide an avenue for granting service by
publication. (ECF No 25, PageID #1082–84). As discussed above, Rule 4(f)(3) does not apply
here and so the second portion of this objection is OVERRULED. As to the first portion of the
objection, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the applicability of § 2703.14(I) was overlooked.
Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2703.14, service may be made by publication:
(I) In an action that relates to or the subject of which is real or personal property in
this state, when the defendant has or claims a lien on the property or an actual or
contingent interest in the property or the relief demanded consists wholly or partly
in excluding him from any interest in the property, and the defendant is not a
resident of this state or is a foreign corporation or his place of residence cannot be
ascertained; . . .
Ohio Rev. Code § 2703.14(I) (emphasis added). 	The Magistrate Judge’s analysis characterized
§ 2703.14(I) as applying to cases involving only real property. 	(ECF No. 24, PageID #1075).
Reviewing the complaint, this case appears as though it might relate to personal property in this
Case: 1:25-cv-02071-CEF Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/30/26 4 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

5
state, Plaintiff appears to be seeking relief in the form of excluding Defendant from any interest in
that personal property, and Defendant is not a resident of Ohio.
However, even if the requirements of § 2703.14(I) apply,2 under Ohio law “a plaintiff must
exercise reasonable diligence in his attempt to locate a defendant before he is entitled to service
by publication.” Prosser v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-0883, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160253,
at *6 (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 31, 2013) (quoting Sizemore v. Smith, 6 Ohio St. 3d 330, 6 Ohio B. 387,
453 N.E.2d 632, 634 (Ohio 1983)). 	Thus, before Plaintiffs can be granted authorization to
effectuate service by publication, there must be a determination as to whether Plaintiffs exercised
such reasonable diligence. 	Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART Plaintiffs’ second
objection but will remand Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for alternative service (ECF No. 23) to
Magistrate Judge Sheperd to determine, in the first instance, the applicability of § 2703.14(I).
Based on this remand, the Court will grant an extension of time to effectuate service, which will
render Plaintiffs’ objection as to denying an extension of time as moot. (See ECF No. 25, PageID
#1085–91).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ objections (ECF No. 25) are OVERRULED IN
PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART. 	The Court ADOPTS IN PART Magistrate Judge
Sheperd’s Order (ECF No. 24) to the extent that it denies Plaintiffs’ request for alternative service
by email. 	The Court REMANDS Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for alternative (ECF No. 23) to
Magistrate Judge Sheperd to determine in the first instance: (i) whether Ohio Rev. Code
§ 2703.14(I) applies; (ii) whether Plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence in trying to locate
Defendant; and (iii) if the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, whether Plaintiffs
2 The Court notes that it has made no determination as to whether § 2703.14(I) applies.
Case: 1:25-cv-02071-CEF Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/30/26 5 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

6
are ultimately entitled to effectuate service by publication. 	The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs an
extension of time to perfect service on Defendant and sets the deadline as May 14, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 30, 2026
____________________________________
CHARLES E. FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
____________________________
Case: 1:25-cv-02071-CEF Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/30/26 6 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>