Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152608

Plaintiffs movant to file a second amended complaint adding 19 more plaintiffs; amendments occur before service on Sudan/Iran under FSIA 1608.
Court grants leave to amend but denies request to serve under 1608(a)(4) via the second amended complaint.
Service attempts under 1608(a)(3) on the first amended complaint were unsuccessful (mail with signed receipt refused).
No special arrangement or international convention exists for service; 1608(a)(3) preferred, then 1608(a)(4); court must follow FSIA service order.
Court rejects advisory-order approach and holds plaintiffs must comply with 1608 terms; no preemptive order directing 1608(a)(4) service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant leave to amend the complaint	Okoba argues to add new plaintiffs; amendments necessary.	Sudan/Iran could face prejudice; delays.	GRANTED leave to amend.
Whether to permit service under 1608(a)(4) after amendment	Court should allow 1608(a)(4) where 1608(a)(3) failed.	FSIA requires service under statutory sequence; no advisory order.	Denied; no prospective order under 1608(a)(4).

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court 1962) (granting leave to amend freely when justice requires)
Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (strict adherence to 1608(a) terms; cannot advisoryly modify process)
Abur v. Republic of Sudan, 437 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2006) (FSIA jurisdiction requires proper service under 1608)
Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court 1989) (FSIA service limitations; jurisdictional prerequisites)
TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, 411 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (four methods of service in FSIA; order of preference)
Estate of Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 808 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) ( FSIA service analysis and procedural requirements)