Doe
Future Motion, Inc. v. Doe
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FUTURE MOTION, INC., Case No. 21-cv-03022-JSC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO SERVE FOREIGN DEFENDANT BY EMAIL
JOHN DOE, PURSUANT TO RULE 4(F)(3)
10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 8
12 Plaintiff Future Motion, Inc. (“Future Motion”) brings patent infringement claims against Defendant John Doe, an unknown party doing business as Floatwheel. Because Future Motion does not know John Doe’s true identity, it seeks leave to provide alternative service by electronic mail under Rule 4(f)(3). (Dkt. No. 8.) After carefully considering Plaintiff’s submission, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice to renewal following further investigation. BACKGROUND Future Motion sells self-balancing electronically motorized skateboards under the …