Yakob v. Lalav Group of Companies

Background

Kameran Yakob moved for permission to use alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). He had attempted to serve Lalav Group of Companies, Choli Mohammed Rasheed, and Masrour Barzani at the Kurdistan Regional Government Representative’s Office in Washington, D.C. The court had previously indicated that Yakob could seek a default judgment later, but he would have to establish that service by mail to that office was proper. The Clerk rejected Yakob’s request for a certificate of default because service had not been properly completed and Yakob had not obtained an order authorizing alternative service.

Rule 4(f) and alternative service

The court explained that Rule 4(f) governs service on foreign individuals. Under Rule 4(h)(2), it also governs service on a foreign corporation, except for personal service. The court found that Iraq is not a party to the Hague Convention governing international service, so service through an internationally agreed method was unavailable. Service under Rule 4(f)(3), which permits other methods ordered by the court, was therefore the available option.

The court found that Yakob had reasonably attempted to serve the defendants and that court intervention was necessary. It concluded that mailing the summons and complaint to the Kurdistan Regional Government Representative’s Office in Washington, D.C., was not prohibited by an international agreement and was reasonably calculated to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to respond. The court therefore approved that method for all three defendants.

Additional required methods

The court also ordered additional service methods for Lalav and Barzani:

- Lalav Group of Companies: Yakob must email the summons and complaint to info@lalav.com and, if able, send them through a private LinkedIn message to Lalav. - Masrour Barzani: Yakob must mail the summons and complaint to Barzani at the listed address in Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. He must also mail the documents to Joe R. Reeder at Greenberg Traurig LLP in Washington, D.C., and email them to Reeder at reederj@gtlaw.com. The court noted that Reeder had accepted service for Barzani in an earlier related proceeding.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Yakob argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act governed service. The court rejected that argument as to the provision for serving a foreign state or political subdivision, explaining that Yakob sued a foreign individual, a foreign corporation, and a foreign head of state—not a foreign state or political subdivision. The court did not decide whether the action might otherwise be treated as an action against a foreign state or whether immunity applies. It also did not decide Yakob’s argument concerning the Act’s commercial-activity exception because immunity was not at issue for decision at this stage.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for leave to effect alternative service on all defendants. By August 18, 2025, Yakob had to serve a copy of the order on all defendants by mail at the Washington, D.C., representative’s office. By that date, he also had to serve the summons and complaint using the additional methods ordered for Lalav and Barzani and file proof of service on the docket. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.