Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), 288 F.R.D. 230

Freedom Watch filed suit against OPEC on May 7, 2012, alleging Sherman Act and Clayton Act violations.
OPEC moved to dismiss for lack of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5).
Plaintiff must perfect service under Rule 4, with international service governed by Rule 4(h)(2) for entities outside the United States.
Freedom Watch claimed personal service on an agent and mailing the complaint to OPEC, with a purported acceptor named Frederick Luger at OPEC's Vienna headquarters.
The Court applies Rule 4(h)(2) and finds Austrian law prohibits private-party direct service and service on an international organization without consent.
Court grants the motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does service satisfy Rule 4(h)(2)?	Freedom Watch asserts valid service via personal delivery and mail to OPEC.	OPEC contends service failed under 4(h)(2) given Austrian prohibition and lack of consent.	No valid service under 4(h)(2); defective.
Is Prewitt controlling authority for service on OPEC?	Prewitt is distinguishable or non-binding here due to different facts.	Prewitt governs and supports invalid service on OPEC without consent.	Prewitt persuasive and controlling; service ineffective.
Should the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service?		Dismissal with prejudice argued by defendant but not warranted for non-merits reasons.	Dismissal without prejudice for lack of service.

Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) (service on OPEC without consent invalid; Austrian law restrictions)
Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (personal jurisdiction requires proper service)
Light v. Wolf, 816 F.2d 746 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (burden to show valid service; Rule 4 requirements)
Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011) (delivery to counsel lacks authority to accept service)