BTQ Technologies Corporation et al v. Namecheap Incorporated

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
BTQ Technologies Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Namecheap Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-02485-PHX-SHD (Lead)
No. CV-26-03103-PHX-SHD (Cons.)
ORDER
BTQ Technologies Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Nicolas Roussy Newton, et al.,
Defendants.
On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs moved for alternative service of Defendant Nicolas
Roussy Newton under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). (Doc. 57.) Plaintiffs assert
that Roussy Newton’s exact whereabouts are unknown, that he is believed to be in Hong
Kong1 but has no fixed known address and is staying at one or more luxury hotels. (Doc.
57-2 at ¶¶ 2–4.) Roussy Newton has obtained counsel to represent him in this matter, but
his counsel has declined to accept service on his behalf. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Because Roussy
Newton’s address is unknown, Plaintiffs seek leave to serve Roussy Newton with the
1 Roussy Newton’s emails mostly indicate that he is in Hong Kong, but at least one
indicates his presence in Korea. (See Doc. 57-3 at 43.)
Case 2:26-cv-02485-SHD Document 60 Filed 06/24/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Summons, Consolidated Complaint, and all subsequently filed papers by email.
Rule 4(f)(3) authorizes service on a foreign individual “by other means not
prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” The Hague Service Convention
(the “Convention”) “specifies certain approved methods of service and pre-empts
inconsistent methods of service.” Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. 271, 273 (2017)
(quotation marks omitted). The Convention does not apply “where the address of the
person to be served with the document is not known.” Hague Service Convention art. 1,
T.A.I.S. No. 6638, 20 U.S.T. 361 (Feb. 10, 1969); see also Facebook, Inc. v. 9 Xiu Network
(Shenzhen) Tech. Co., 2020 WL 9422392, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2020) report and
recommendation adopted 2021 WL 1717080 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (authorizing email service
under Rule 4(f)(3) to a defendant in China whose address was unknown). When the
Convention does not apply, district courts may authorize alternative service under Rule
4(f)(3) so long as the chosen method comports with due process—that is, is “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.” Mullane v. Cent.
Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); see also Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l
Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding email to be an acceptable form of
alternative service).
Because Roussy Newton’s address is unknown, the Hauge Convention does not
apply, and alternative service may be ordered under Rule 4(f)(3). Plaintiffs have presented
significant evidence that Roussy Newton is monitoring and responding to his email
address. (See Doc. 57-2 at ¶¶ 14–31.) I have previously directed Plaintiffs to notify Roussy
Newton of proceedings in this court by email, and he has both responded to those notices
and, in one instance, appeared remotely to a court proceeding as a result. (See, e.g., Docs.
14, 16.) Thus, email service is reasonably calculated to appraise Roussy Newton of the
pendency of this action and afford him an opportunity to respond.
Accordingly,
///
Case 2:26-cv-02485-SHD Document 60 Filed 06/24/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 57).
Plaintiffs may serve Defendant Nicolas Roussy Newton with the Summons, Consolidated
Complaint, and all subsequently filed papers by email at nicolasalexandre@me.com
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).
Dated this 24th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02485-SHD Document 60 Filed 06/24/26 Page 3 of 3