Moglia v. Israelsen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ALEX D. MOGLIA, in his capacity as court-
appointed receiver,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIE R. ISRAELSEN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ORDER AUTHORIZING
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS (DOC. NO. 78)
Case No. 1:25-cv-00086
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
In this receivership action, Alex Moglia, the court-appointed receiver, seeks leave
to serve Jeremy Israelsen, Kanokwan Israelsen, and Michael Israelsen by email
because they have moved abroad.1 	Because Mr. Moglia’s proposed methods of
alternative service are not prohibited by international agreement and are reasonably
calculated to provide these defendants with notice, the motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Until his death in October 2024, Mark Israelsen owned and controlled several
companies.2 In February 2025, East West Bank sued these companies for fraud
1 (Second Mot. for Order Authorizing Alt. Serv. of Process (Mot.), Doc. No. 78.)
2 (Compl. ¶ 1, Doc. No. 1.) These companies were Quantum IR Technologies LLC, QIR
Technology Holdings, Inc., QIR Air Resources LLC, and QIR Cement Thermal
Technology, LLC. (Id. at 1.)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 8

2
committed by Mr. Israelsen.3 The court appointed Mr. Moglia4 as receiver “to identify,
collect, and preserve the assets of the Receivership Estate for the benefit of the estate’s
creditors.”5 The present action followed.
Mr. Moglia has named several individuals who allegedly received funds from
Mark Israelsen and his companies.6 Relevant here are Jeremy Israelsen, Kanokwan
Israelsen, and Michael Israelsen, who have not been served or appeared in this case.7
Jeremy is Mark’s son from a previous marriage.8 Kanokwan is Mark’s widow, and
Michael is their son.9 Kanokwan and Mark also have another son, Chanon Israelsen,
who is not a party to this case but is relevant to the present motion.10
3 See East West Bank v. QIT Tech. Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:25-cv-00105 (D. Utah
Feb. 12, 2025).
4 (See Order Granting Mot. to Appoint Receiver, Doc. No. 30 in East West Bank v. QIT
Tech. Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:25-cv-00105.) After Mr. Israelsen passed, Mr. Moglia
became president and secretary of the companies at the request of the secured lenders
and investors. (Id. at 2.)
5 (Compl. ¶ 5, Doc. No. 1.)
6 (Id. ¶ 8.)
7 (Id. ¶¶ 8, 10.) Because they share a last name, this order refers to these individuals
and Mark Israelsen by first name for clarity.
8 (Id. ¶ 62.)
9 (Id. ¶¶ 65, 72.)
10 (See Mot. 2, Doc. No. 78.)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 8

3
In July 2025, Mr. Moglia unsuccessfully tried to serve Jeremy, Kanokwan, and
Michael personally at addresses in Utah.11 The process server learned Jeremy had
moved to the Netherlands, and Kanokwan and Michael had moved to Thailand upon
Mark’s death.12 Through emails and records of Mark’s companies, Mr. Moglia identified
two email addresses Jeremy used to communicate with Mark.13 Mr. Moglia’s counsel
sent emails to both addresses and did not receive any notice of non-delivery, although
Jeremy did not respond.14 Mr. Moglia similarly identified two email addresses Michael
used to communicate with Mark.15 Mr. Moglia’s counsel likewise sent several emails to
these addresses.16 And although Michael did not respond, counsel did not receive any
notice of non-delivery.17
As for Kanokwan, Mark’s family (through counsel) identified an email address as
hers.18 Mr. Moglia sent emails to this address and did not receive notices of non-
11 (Ex. A to Mot., Decl. of Daniel Nelson (Nelson Decl.) ¶¶ 3–5, Doc. No. 78-1
(referencing Exs. C & G to Mot., Doc. Nos. 78-3 & 78-7); id. ¶¶ 16–17 (referencing Ex. L
to Mot., Doc. No. 78-12).)
12 (Id. ¶¶ 5, 17 (referencing Exs. C, G, & L to Mot., Doc. Nos. 78-3, 78-7, & 78-12).)
13 (Id. ¶ 18 (referencing jisraelsen@gmail.com and jeremy@israelsen.me in Ex. J to
Mot., Doc. No. 78-10).)
14 (Id. ¶ 19 (referencing Ex. K to Mot., Doc. No. 78-11).)
15 (Id. ¶ 8 (referencing reisen.a11@gmail.com and michael.israelsen@quantumir.com in
Ex. H to Mot., Doc. No. 78-8).)
16 (Id. ¶¶ 9–11 (referencing Exs. D & I to Mot., Doc. Nos. 78-4 & 78-9).)
17 (Id.)
18 (Id. ¶ 13 (referencing toibmw1@gmail.com in Ex. E to Mot., Doc. No. 78-5).)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 8

4
delivery, although Kanokwan did not respond.19 In addition, Mr. Moglia has Chanon’s
email address because he contacted Mr. Moglia’s counsel about this case.20
Specifically, Chanon reached out “on behalf of his mother” in late July “regarding the
ongoing lawsuit.”21 He explained Kanokwan wants to explore potential settlement and
asked counsel to respond as to “how we can move forward.”22 Mr. Moglia now seeks
leave to serve Jeremy, Kanokwan, and Michael via the identified email addresses.23
LEGAL STANDARDS
Mr. Moglia moves for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rule 4(f) governs service of an individual outside the United States
and permits service as follows:
(1) 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;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if international
agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is
reasonably calculated to give notice [as enumerated in subsections (A)–
(C)]; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court
orders.24
19 (Id. ¶ 14 (referencing Ex. D to Mot., Doc. No. 78-4).)
20 (Id. ¶ 12 (referencing chanon.israelsen@gmail.com in Ex. B to Mot., Doc. No. 78-2).)
21 (Ex. B to Mot. 1, Doc. No. 78-2.)
22 (Id.)
23 (Mot. 6–9, Doc. No. 78.)
24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 8

5
Rule 4(f) does not create a hierarchy of preferred methods of service, and parties
are not required to comply with Rule 4(f)(1) or (2) before seeking service under Rule
4(f)(3).25 The relevant inquiry under Rule 4(f)(3) is whether the requested method of
service is prohibited by international agreement, including the Hague Convention.26
And a method of service authorized under Rule 4(f)(3) must also comport with
constitutional notions of due process, meaning it must be “reasonably calculated to
provide notice and an opportunity to respond.”27
ANALYSIS
The present motion satisfies Rule 4(f)(3). The proposed alternative methods of
service are not prohibited by international agreement. And they comport with
constitutional notions of due process where they are reasonably calculated to provide
Jeremy, Kanokwan, and Michael with notice of this action and an opportunity to
respond.
To start, Mr. Moglia asks to serve Jeremy by email because he moved to the
Netherlands. Such service is not prohibited by international agreement. The
25 See, e.g., Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002);
Neck Hammock, Inc. v. Danezen.com, No. 2:20-cv-00287, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
202808, at *8 (D. Utah Oct. 29, 2020) (unpublished).
26 Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B.
de C.V., 970 F.3d 1269, 1294 (10th Cir. 2020).
27 Neck Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *11–12 (quoting Rio Props., 284
F.3d at 1017).
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 8

6
Netherlands is a signatory to the Hague Convention,28 which does not expressly prohibit
service by email—and courts have permitted email service under Rule 4(f)(3).29 In
addition, serving Jeremy by email (at jisraelsen@gmail.com and jeremy@israelsen.me)
comports with notions of due process. Mr. Moglia provides evidence Jeremy uses
these emails, and Mr. Moglia’s attempts to make contact via these email addresses did
not result in notices of non-delivery, suggesting they are active. Based on this
evidence, the proposed method of service to Jeremy is reasonably calculated to provide
notice of this action and an opportunity to respond.30
Next, Mr. Moglia asks to serve Michael and Kanokwan by email because they
moved to Thailand. Such service is also not prohibited by international agreement.
Thailand is neither a signatory to the Hague Convention31 nor a party to an international
28 See Contracting Parties, Hague Conference on Private International Law, (Hague
Contracting Parties) https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-
table/?cid=17 [https://perma.cc/B99R-65TG].
29 See, e.g., Neck Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *11–12;
Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder, Inc., No. C 06-06572, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
31299, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2007) (unpublished).
30 See Great Bowery v. Best Little Sites, No. 2:21-cv-00567, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
100972, at *8 (D. Utah Mar. 24, 2022) (unpublished) (finding alternative service via
email was proper where the plaintiff offered evidence that the email address belonged
to the defendant and successfully contacted the address); Mattel, Inc. v. AnimeFun
Store, No. 18 Civ. 8824, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77660, at *12–13 (S.D.N.Y. May 1,
2020) (unpublished) (finding email service proper where the plaintiff received receipts
showing the emails were “sent to, delivered to and received by” each defendant).
31 See Hague Contracting Parties supra note 27. For this reason, the legal authority
relating to interpreting Hague Convention standards in light of Rule 4 does not apply.
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 8

7
agreement prohibiting email service.32 And email service to Michael (at
reisen.a11@gmail.com and michael.israelsen@quantumir.com) and Kanokwan (at
toibmw1@gmail.com and chanon.israelsen@gmail.com) comports with notions of due
process. Mr. Moglia provides evidence Michael and Kanokwan use these emails (and
Chanon uses his email on behalf of Kanokwan regarding this case). And Mr. Moglia’s
attempts to make contact through the email addresses did not result in notices of non-
delivery. As with Jeremy, the proposed methods of email service for Michael and
Kanokwan are reasonably calculated to provide notice of this action and an opportunity
to respond. Accordingly, the court permits alternative service by these methods.
CONCLUSION
Because Mr. Moglia’s proposed methods of serving Jeremy, Michael, and
Kanokwan by email are not prohibited by international agreement and comport with
constitutional notions of due process, Mr. Moglia’s motion33 is granted. Mr. Moglia may
serve these defendants by doing the following:
1. 	Mr. Moglia must send a summons, the complaint, and a copy of this order
to Jeremy Israelsen at jisraelsen@gmail.com and jeremy@israelsen.me three times per
32 See Wavve Ams. Inc. v. Unknown Party, No. CV-23-01819, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
167757, at *3–4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20, 2023) (unpublished) (collecting cases); see also U.S.
Strategic Cap. Advisors, LLC v. Croft Ventures, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01335, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 85258, *2 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2025) (unpublished) (“Thailand does
not prohibit email or private process service because it has neither signed the Hague
Convention on Service Abroad nor any other international service agreement.”).
33 (Doc. No. 78.)
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 8

8
week for two consecutive weeks, not more often than once every other day (unless a
written response is received from Jeremy acknowledging receipt of service).
2. 	Mr. Moglia must send a summons, the complaint, and a copy of this order
to Michael Israelsen at reisen.a11@gmail.com and michael.israelsen@quantumir.com
three times per week for two consecutive weeks, not more often than once every other
day (unless a written response is received from Michael acknowledging receipt of
service).
3. 	Mr. Moglia must send a summons, the complaint, and a copy of this order
to Kanokwan Israelsen at toibmw1@gmail.com and chanon.israelsen@gmail.com three
times per week for two consecutive weeks, not more often than once every other day
(unless a written response is received from Kanokwan acknowledging receipt of service
or from Chanon acknowledging receipt of service on Kanokwan’s behalf).
Service of these defendants shall be deemed complete upon completion of these
steps. Mr. Moglia shall file proof of compliance with this order, and the deadline to
serve these defendants is extended to April 13, 2026.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00086-JNP-DAO Document 104 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 8