ASSOCIATED ENERGY GROUP, LLC v. Ukraine International Airlines PJSC, 1:23-cv-21036

Associated Energy Group, LLC sued Ukraine International Airlines PJSC in the Southern District of Florida for breach of contract relating to sale/delivery of aviation fuel and services (complaint filed March 16, 2023).
Plaintiff attempted formal service via the Hague Convention by submitting documents to the Ukrainian Central Authority in May–July 2023, but service could not be perfected due to the Russia–Ukraine conflict.
Plaintiff moved for alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), seeking email service to UIA’s Head of Legal, Liudmyla Riaboshapka, and to known outside counsel Benedict Idemundia (addresses identified).
The court noted Ukraine is a Hague Convention signatory but has not expressly objected to alternative methods in Article 10 (e.g., email), and other courts have allowed electronic service where not prohibited by treaty.
The magistrate judge found Plaintiff showed good cause and that email service was reasonably calculated to give notice under Mullane; the court authorized service by email to the specified addresses, required translations, and ordered Plaintiff to file delivery confirmation per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(2)(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may authorize alternative service on a foreign defendant under Rule 4(f)(3)	Rule 4(f)(3) grants broad discretion to order alternate methods when Hague service fails	Service should follow Hague Convention channels; alternative service improper absent exhaustion	Court exercised its discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) and authorized alternate service by email
Whether the Hague Convention prohibits email or other electronic service	Ukraine has not objected to Article 10 alternatives; Convention does not expressly bar email	Hague/Article 10 limits postal methods and might not contemplate email	Court held email service is not prohibited where the signatory state has not objected to alternate means
Whether email service would satisfy due-process notice requirements	Plaintiff identified in-house legal contact and counsel and provided their emails; email is reasonably calculated to give notice	Email might be insufficient to effectuate notice to a foreign corporate defendant	Court found Mullane due-process standard satisfied and authorized email service to the named addresses

Prewitt Enters. v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) (district courts have broad discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize alternate service)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action)
Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts may balance limitations and benefits of email service under Rule 4(f)(3))