Doe

Jane Doe v. Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 14, 20253:25-cv-07815California478 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, Case No. 25-cv-07815-RFL

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

v. ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., Re: Dkt. No. 33 INC., et al., Defendants.

Self-represented Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service is GRANTED. “[S]ervice under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court; and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. No other limitations are evident from the text.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff proposes serving Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Sun Ltd.”), an Indian company, either by emailing its U.S.-based counsel or sending registered mail to Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Sun Inc.”), Sun Ltd.’s U.S.-based subsidiary. (See Dkt. No. 2 (Sun Inc. is a subsidiary of Sun Ltd.).) Because these methods of service do not involve transmitting documents abroad to effectuate service there, the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters does not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.