govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_26-cv-00419-0

Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
YORK TOWN I LLC,
Plaintiff,

TAREK EL SHERIF, MARTIN
SCHRIMPFF, MICHAEL PACKER,
JUAN MANUEL ORDONEZ, NELSON
ORTIZ, and JOHN DOES 1–5,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:26-CV-00419 (KAD)

APRIL 29, 2026

MOTION FOR COURT-ORDERED SERVICE ON FOREIGN DEFENDANTS
[ECF No. 16]

Kari A. Dooley, United States District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff York Town I LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “ York Town”)
Motion for Court-Ordered Service on Foreign Defendants ( the “Motion”) (ECF No. 16). In the
Motion, Plaintiff seeks alternative service on three Foreign Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(f)(3). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks leave to effectuate formal service upon Defendants Martin
Schrimpff (“Schrimpff”), believed to reside in Mexic o, Spain, and/or Florida ; and Nelson Ortiz
(“Ortiz”) and Tarek El Sherif (“El Sherif”), both believed to reside in Colombia (collectively, the
“Colombia Defendants”); via email and mail service. ECF No. 16, at 1–2.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 19, 2026. ECF No. 1. On April 7, 2026, Plaintiff
filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to enjoin the dissipation of certain assets in Defendants’ possession. ECF No.
13. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for TRO but scheduled a hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction for May 6, 2026. ECF No. 14. The Court further directed Plaintiff to
effectuate servic e of the Complaint, summons es, and all documents related to the preliminary
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 9
2
injunction motion, upon all Defendants by April 22, 2026. ECF No. 14. This motion for
alternative service followed.
Service on individuals outside of the United States is governed by Rule 4(f). Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(f). Rule 4(f)(3) provides that service on a foreign litigant may be effected “by other means
not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3); see Cleer
LLC v. Stranger, No. 3:24-CV-1496 (MPS), 2024 WL 4872157, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2024)
(quotation omitted) (“The only limitations on Rule 4(f)(3) are that the means of service must be
directed by the court and must not be prohibited by international agreement.”). However, courts
in this Circuit have generally required a plaintiff to meet a threshold showing that (1) the plaintiff
has “reasonably attempted to effectuate service on the defendant[s],” and (2) the circumstances are
such that warrant court intervention. Shanghai Zhenglang Tech. Co. v. Mengku Tech. Co., No. 20-
CV-5209 (JS), 2020 WL 13280555, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020) (alteration in original); see
also Halvorssen v. Simpson, 328 F.R.D. 30, 34–35 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).
Finally, and most importantly, “any service ordered must also comport with Constitutional
requirements of due process.” Halvorssen, 328 F.R.D. at 34. “The Due Process Clause requires
that the alternative means of service 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.’” Noble Sec., Inc. v. Ingamar Co., No. 21-CV-1372 (MKB), 2021 WL 2012508,
at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306,
314 (1950)).
The Colombia Defendants
Plaintiff seeks to effectuate formal service upon Ortiz and El Sherif via email and mail
service. The Court finds that Plaintiff are not entitled to either on the present record.
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 9
3
The Court’s inquiry begins with the Hague Convention. 1 Colombia, Mexico, and Spain
are all signatories to the Hague Convention , see Mem. of Law, ECF No. 16-1, at 2 n.1, and thus,
it is the Hague Convention that governs the Court’s inquiry . The Hague Convention requires all
signatory nations to establish a “central authority” to receive requests for service of documents,
but it also allows nations to “opt out” of alternative means of service specified in the Convention’s
articles. See Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon , 581 U.S. 271, 275 (2017). Specifically, Article 10 of
the Hague Convention governs the mailing of judicial documents through “postal channels.” See
id. Articles 10(b) and 10(c), not at issue here, govern alternative means of service by and through
judicial officers, whereas Article 10(a) permits service of judicial documents by mail, so long as
the signatory nation do es not object. See id. at 284 (“[I]n cases governed by the Hague Service
Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has
not objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise -
applicable law.”).
As relevant to Ortiz and El Sherif , Colombia ha s only affirmatively objected to Articles
10(b) and 10(c), and it has not objected to Article 10(a). See Mem. of Law at 4 & n.2. Thus, mail
service via “postal channels” in Colombia would be permitted. Next, the Court must determine
whether service via email to the Colombia Defendants would be permitted under the Hague
Convention. Although not cited by the Plaintiff (troubling in and of itself), the Second Circuit has
recently addressed service by email under the Hague Convention. See generally Smart Study Co.
v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, 164 F.4th 164 (2d Cir. 2025). The Smart Study court held
that, because the Convention “create[s] a closed universe of simple and certain means of serving

1 See The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or
Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638; see also Statute of the Hague Conference on
Private International Law , HCCH, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=17 (last
updated Mar. 21, 2024) (hereinafter “Convention Status Table”).
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 9
4
parties in foreign countries,” id. at 171 (quotation omitted), and the Convention therefore “pre -
empts inconsistent methods of service wherever it applies,” id. (quoting Water Splash, 581 U.S. at
273), “[e]mail service is one such ‘inconsistent method[]’ preempted by the Convention.” Id.
“Thus, where the Hague Convention applies, a defendant may only be served by one of the
methods of service enumerated therein; and not by any alternative means, including, as relevant
here, by email.” Foxmind Can. Enters. Ltd. v. Aproat, No. 25-CV-5837 (JSR), 2026 WL 412645,
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2026) ; see also Fox Corp. v. Media Deportes Mex., S. de R.L. de C.V. ,
No. 25-CV-6703 (JSR), 2026 WL 438878, at *4 –5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026) (explaining impact
of Smart Study). As a result, email service upon the Colombia Defendants is prohibited under the
Second Circuit’s holding in Smart Study.2
Having determined that no international agreement prohibits mail service upon the
Colombia Defendants, the Court must next determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to such service.
It is not. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it has reasonably attempted to effectuate service on
the Colombia Defendants under the Convention. Plaintiff certified that it emailed the Complaint,
summonses, its pending motion for preliminary injunction, and supporting papers to Ortiz and El
Sherif through known email addresses. Frost Decl., ECF No. 16 -3, ¶ 2. Plaintiff requested that
each Defendant indicate whether they are represented by counsel and advise whether they would

2 As explained above, email service is prohibited on Hague Convention signatories where the Hague
Convention applies. “However, and critically, the Hague Convention does not apply where the address of the person
to be served with the document is not known.” Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Top Dep’t Store, No. 22-CV-558 (PAE),
2022 WL 3701216, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022) (quotations omitted) (cleaned up). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s
submissions whether they know any of the Foreign Defendants’ addresses: Plaintiff provides two residential addresses
for Schrimpff, and a business address in Mexico for both El Sherif and Ortiz. ECF No. 16-4, at 2–3. But Plaintiff
does not explain what efforts they have made, if any, to ascertain the Foreign Defendants’ addresses. “Courts in this
Circuit have found an address is ‘not known’ if the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in attempti ng to discover
a physical address for service of process and was unsuccessful in doing so.” Kelly Toys, 2022 WL 3701216, at *6
(quotation omitted). If Plaintiff wishes to argue that email service should be permitted under Rule 4(f)(3) because the
Foreign Defendants’ addresses are unknown, then it may make that showing with appropriate documentation and
support in a renewed motion.
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 9
5
waive formal service and accept service of the Complaint by email. Id. The Foreign Defendants
did not respond to any of Plaintiff’s inquiries. Id. ¶ 4. However, Plaintiff has not indicated whether
it has begun (or intends to begin) the process of formal service through Colombia’s Central
Authority, and if so, what the status of that process is. “This is fatal to Plaintiff’s motion. Indeed,
the Court is unable to identify a single instance in which a court in this Circuit granted a motion
for alternative service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) where the plaintiff knew the defendant’s address
but did not take any steps to effectuate service, such as through the Convention.” Shanghai
Zhenglang, 2020 WL 13280555, at *2 (collecting cases).
Although Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to alternative service because the U.S. State
Department estimates that service through Colombia’s Central Authority typically requires 6 to 18
months, Mem. of Law at 5 –6 & n.3 , as explained above, the Court cannot accurately assess the
Rule 4(f)(3) inquiry where Plaintiff has not initiated the formal service of process and provided
status updates to the Court. See, e.g., Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Medenstar Indus. Co., 312 F.R.D. 329,
332 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (authorizing alternative service after eight months where plaintiff “timely
attempted service through the Hague Convention; has made multiple queries to the Chinese Central
Authority; and has diligently kept the Court apprised of these efforts”) , abrogated on other
grounds by Smart Study , 164 F.4th 164 . And delays and inconvenience alone are not sufficient
for the Court to authorize an “end -run[]” around the Hague Convention’s dictates. Smart Study,
164 F.4th at 171.
Therefore, the motion for alternative service as to the Colombia Defendants is denied
without prejudice to renewal.
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 9
6
Defendant Schrimpff
Plaintiff also seeks to serve Martin Schrimpff via email and mail service. According to
Plaintiff’s motion, Schrimpff is located either in Mexico or Spain. ECF No. 16, at 1. However,
in Plaintiff’s proposed order, it includes three email addresses for Schrimpff and two “known
residential addresses”—one in Mexico, and one in Miami Beach, Florida. ECF No. 16 -4, at 2.
Plaintiff does not explain what these two addresses are, how they learned about them, and whether
these “residential addresses” qualify as Schrimpff’s “dwelling or usual place of abode.” See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B). If Schrimpff has a dwelling or usual place of abode in Florida, Plaintiff must
serve him there, or at least explain to the Court why service on Schrimpff at that address would
not be sufficient under Rule 4. Similarly, Plaintiff also has not explained what efforts, if any, they
have made to serve Schrimpff within the United States, or any efforts to investigate Schrimpff’s
location, within the United States or otherwise. See Kelly Toys, 2022 WL 3701216, at *6 (finding
plaintiff’s efforts adequate for alternative service where counsel located multiple addresses online
and then dispatched investigators to those locations).
Furthermore, as explained above, if Schrimpff does reside in either Mexico or Spain,
because both of those countries are signatories to the Hague Convention, email service upon him
would be squarely prohibited under the Second Circuit’s decision in Smart Study .3 And if
Schrimpff’s address is unknown , thereby rendering the Hague Convention inapplicable, then
Plaintiff must demonstrate that it undertook reasonably diligent efforts to discover his address. See
Kelly Toys, 2022 WL 3701216, at *6 (collecting cases); see supra at n.2.

3 Regarding mail service, Spain does not object to Article 10(a), meaning that mail service via “postal
channels” would be allowed on a Spanish defendant under the Hague Convention. See supra at n.1. However, Mexico
does object to Article 10(a), meaning that, in the aftermath of Smart Study, both email and mail service is squarely
prohibited for defendants located in Mexico. See Fox Corp. , 2026 WL 438878, at *6 (“Mexico, like China, has
objected to the provisions to the Hague Convention that authorize service of process by ‘postal channels.’”).
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 6 of 9
7
Thus, the motion for alternative service as to Schrimpff is also denied without prejudice to
renewal.
Article 15 Provisional Service
Notwithstanding the above, although not requested by Plaintiff, the Court will authorize
provisional email service of the Complaint, summonses, preliminary injunction motion, and all
supporting documents, under Article 15 of the Hague Convention upon the Foreign Defendants.
“Even where the Hague Convention applies, Article 15 of the Hague Convention provides that,
notwithstanding the other provisions, ‘the judge may order, in cases of urgency, any provisional
or protective measures,’ which courts . . . have construed to permit service of process by email.”
Quantum Mango, LLC v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P’ships, & Unincorporated Assocs.
Identified on Schedule A , No. 25-CV-7732 (JHR), 2025 WL 3215649, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18,
2025) (quoting Article 15 of the Hague Convention) . Courts in this Circuit have used Article 15
to authorize service by email upon foreign defendants to provide them with notice of pending
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. See Overnight Blowout LLC v. Shenzhen
Kairuijia E-Com. Co., No. 25-CV-6086 (LJL), 2025 WL 2381588, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025)
(“Article 15 is instead better read to authorize relief such as temporary restraining orders or
preliminary injunctions, which are quintessential ‘provisional or protective measures.’ Unlike
alternative service, these measures are designed precisely for the purpose of providing interim
relief.”); Fox Corp., 2026 WL 438878, at *11 (affirming service of temporary restraining order
via email under Article 15 in the aftermath of Smart Study); Foxmind, 2026 WL 412645, at *2 n.3
(collecting cases). And furthermore, as the Smart Study court noted, that decision does not impact
the ability of a judge to order alternative service pursuant to Article 15 for “provisional or
protective measures.” 164 F.4th at 167; see Fox Corp., 2026 WL 438878, at *7.
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 7 of 9
8
Neither Colombia nor Spain have objected to Article 15 of the Hague Convention. See
Convention Status Table (last column for “Reservations”). Mexico has objected to Article 15(2),
but not Article 15(3), which is the subsection which allows a court outside Mexico “in a ‘case of
urgency,’ to impose ‘provisional or protective measures’ against defendants located in Mexico,
even where the Hague Convention’s usual service requirements have not been satisfied.” Fox
Corp., 2026 WL 438878, at *7 (quoting Article 15(3) of the Hague Convention); see Declarations
of the United Mexican States , HCCH, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-
table/notifications/?csid=412&disp=resdn (last updated Mar. 21, 2024). Thus, the Court may
exercise its authority under Article 15 of the Hague Convention to authorize email service upon
the Foreign Defendants of the preliminary injunction documents.
Further, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the email addresses it provided for the Foreign
Defendants are “reasonably calculated to give notice,” as required by Rule 4(f) , Rule 65, and the
Due Process Clause. “[S]ervice by e -mail alone comports with due process where a plaintiff
demonstrates that the email is likely to reach the defendant.” RHG & Co. v. Madison Ave Health
Inc., No. 3:19-CV-990 (JBA), 2019 WL 13215662, at *2 (D. Conn. Aug. 20, 2019). All of these
email addresses have been used by Plaintiff to actually communicate with the Foreign Defendants,
and Plaintiff provided documentation of such emails. Meli Decl., ECF No. 16-2, ¶¶ 3–4. Further,
the email addresses provided for El Sherif and Schrimpff were used for official judicial service in
related foreign proceedings: El Sherif’s Tangelo domain email address was used by a Colombian
civil court for notice in an underlying dispute, and Schrimpff’s Gmail address was used d uring
insolvency proceedings in the Cayman Islands. Id. ¶ 5. This is more than sufficient for the Court
to find that notice to these email addresses would be “reasonably calculated” to reach the Foreign
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 8 of 9
9
Defendants. See Grp. One Ltd. v. GTE GmbH , 523 F. Supp. 3d 323, 345 (E.D.N.Y. 2021)
(collecting cases).
Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Court -Ordered Service Upon the Foreign
Defendants, ECF No. 16, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. However, the Court sua sponte
authorizes Plaintiff to provide notice of the preliminary injunction motion, as specified in the
Court’s prior order, to the Foreign Defendants via the email addresses listed in Plaintiff’s motion.
See ECF No. 16 -4; ECF No. 14 (directing Plaintiff to “serve the Complaint and its exhibits,
Summonses, and all required documents listed in ECF No. 10, on all Defendant s . . . as well as a
copy of this Order and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, together with all exhibits.”).
Plaintiff shall file proof of such service no later than May 4, 2026.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 29th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Kari A. Dooley
KARI A. DOOLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00419-KAD Document 18 Filed 04/29/26 Page 9 of 9

Passage view · GavelSight