The case of the day is AXS Group v. Internet Referral Services (C.D. Cal. 2024). AXS sued Amosa.app, a business that it claimed sold counterfeit AXS tickets online. Discovery revealed that Amosa.app was operated by someone named Altan Tanriverdi, who had an email address, a phone number, and a mailing address in Ankara, Turkey.

AXS sought leave to serve Tanriverdi with process by email, as its investigation had not “provided certainty” about his “present whereabouts.” The court noted the split of authority about how to handle service of email under the Service Convention but concluded that because the Convention does not authorize or permit it (Turkey objects to service by postal channels), and because the Convention is exclusive, the motion had to denied.

That’s all great, except that Tanriverdi’s address was unknown. So under Article 1, the Convention shouldn’t have applied. Perhaps one could make an issue about whether AXS had done enough to show that Tanriverdi’s whereabouts were unknown. In any event, while I appreciate every judge who gets the email question right, sometimes, the easy answer is the best answer. The court probably should not have denied the motion on the grounds it chose.