Ahkeo Labs LLC v. Plurimi Investment Managers LLP, 1:17-cv-01248

Plaintiff Ahkeo Labs LLC sued Plurimi Investment Managers LLP and Alexander Dupee (both resident in London) for breach of contract and moved for alternative service of process.
Defendants have U.S.-based counsel (Plurimi’s counsel in Cleveland, Dupee’s counsel in New York).
Before filing, Ahkeo asked defendants to waive service; defendants refused.
Ahkeo then asked defendants’ U.S. lawyers to accept formal service; counsel refused.
Ahkeo moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) to serve the defendants by delivering process to their U.S. counsel.
The district court evaluated whether (1) court-directed alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) was proper and (2) the proposed method was prohibited by the Hague Convention or inconsistent with due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may order alternative service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) to serve foreign defendants via their U.S. counsel	Court may authorize alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) without first exhausting Rule 4(f)(1) or (2); Ahkeo attempted waiver and domestic acceptance first	Defendants opposed accepting service through counsel (implicitly arguing service must follow other Rule 4(f) methods)	Court granted Rule 4(f)(3) relief; directed service on defendants through their U.S. counsel because court direction and lack of prohibition by international agreement satisfied Rule 4(f)(3) requirements
Whether service on defendants’ U.S. counsel is barred by the Hague Convention or violates due process	Hague does not apply where service on a domestic agent is valid and complete; serving counsel who know of the suit and declined to accept service is reasonably calculated to provide notice	Defendants relied on refusal to accept service (no persuasive argument that Hague applied)	Court held Hague Convention inapplicable and that service on U.S. counsel comported with due process (reasonably calculated to give notice)

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1988) (Hague Convention applies only to transmittals abroad required as part of service)
Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 4(f)(3) permits court-ordered alternative service not prohibited by international agreement)