Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 15-1154
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-03956-JKB)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Enovative
Technologies,
LLC
(Enovative),
filed
civil
the
action
below.
Leor
appeals
from
those
two
orders,
issues
court
Leor
had
raises
on
diversity
appeal
are
jurisdiction;
whether:
(2)
(1)
the
Virginia
law
to
relinquish
(5) the
district
service
of
court
process
via
ownership
had
in
personal
to
Leor
preliminary
jurisdiction
in
hearing;
to
Thailand;
effect
(6)
the
decided
the
issue
on
the
2
basis
of
subject
matter
that
Leor
overruled
did
not
Leors
have;
(10)
objections
the
during
district
the
court
evidentiary
hearings; and (11) the district court erred by denying Leor, who
was proceeding pro se, permission to file electronically.
The record does not contain a transcript of court hearings
conducted on February 12 and 13, 2015.
of
the
appeal.
proceedings
material
to
the
issues
raised
on
An
transcript
or
to
qualify
for
the
By failing to
production
of
Georges Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987).
Because
conducted
in
addressed.
issues
on
1,
February
3,
4,
8,
12
9,
and
and
13,
10
2015,
cannot
his
be
claims
properly
In issue 2
See Sligh v. Doe, 596 F.2d 1169, 1171 & 1171 n.9 (4th
The
issue
Leor,
(E.R. 360).
who
lives
in
Thailand,
case,
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
4(f)(3)
allows
for
questions
the
As applied to
service
upon
international
agreement
as
may
be
directed
by
the
court.
Rule 4(f) does not denote any hierarchy or preference for one
4
Interlink,
(9th
284
F.3d
1007,
1015
Cir.
2002).
The
only
directed
by
the
court
international agreement.
and
Id.
must
not
be
prohibited
by
omitted).
A court is afforded wide discretion in ordering service of
process under Rule 4(f)(3), which provides the Court with . . .
flexibility and discretion . . . empowering courts to fit the
manner of service utilized to the facts and circumstances of the
particular case.
713, 719 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000) (granting Rule 4(f)(3) motion
approving service to defendants last-known email address).
In
must
approve
all
method
the
of
service
circumstances
that
is
to
give
reasonably
calculated
under
notice
to
defendant.
its
December
24
order,
the
district
court
granted
finding
that:
the
service
5
complied
with
the
constitutional
and
due
process
notice
requirements
under
Mullane; Leor had left the United States and moved to Thailand;
Enovative
Leors
had
searched
mailing
diligently,
address;
and
yet
that
unsuccessfully,
Leor
had
exhibited
for
a
167-68).
The
electronic
agreement,
including
court
was
not
found
the
district
Thailand,
courts
alternative
prohibited
and
that
by
thus
any
finding
that
by
international
granted
(E.R. 168).
service
Enovatives
We find no abuse
it
had
personal
issue
Leor
asserts
that
injunctive
relief
was
E.
Tenn. Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808, 828 (4th Cir. 2004)
(noting that factual determinations are reviewed for clear error
and legal conclusions de novo).
two
of
the
websites
the
products.
6
company
used
to
sell
its
court
granted
Enovatives
motion
for
sanctions,
civil
R.
(E.R. 361).
10(c)(1).
Moreover,
the
district
court
applied
the
failure
the
litigants
to
Supreme
into
follow
Court
the
has
compliance.
courts
rulings.
allowed
daily
See
generally
(E.R.
fines
Intl
to
361).
coerce
Union
v.
merit.
In issue 11 Leor alleges that the district court erred by
denying him permission to file electronically.
however,
to
show
entitlement
to
file
electronically
in
the
Accordingly,
while
we
grant
leave
to
proceed
in
forma
pauperis, we affirm for the above reasons and for those stated
by the district court.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and