ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Hydentra HLP INT. Limited and Hydentra, L.P. HLP General Partner, Inc. ("Hydentra" or "Plaintiffs") filed an ex parte motion for alternative service on Defendants Sagan Limited, MXN Limited (now known as "Cyberweb"), Netmedia Services, Inc., and David Koonar. Doc. 12. Defendants responded while specifically reserving their right to object to personal jurisdiction once properly served. Doc. 15 at 2. Plaintiffs replied. Doc. 18. No party has requested oral argument. The Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct alternative service.

II. Legal Standard.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign business entity in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for individuals. Rule 4(f) provides three methods by which a plaintiff may serve an international defendant:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)-(3).

Service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). "No other limitations are evident from the text [of Rule 4(f)(3)]. In fact, as long as court-directed and not prohibited by an international agreement, service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country." Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a "last resort" nor "extraordinary relief," but "is merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international defendant." Id.

To pass constitutional muster, a method of service must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Applying this construction of Rule 4(f)(3) and the standard articulated in Mullane, courts have authorized a wide variety of alternative methods of service. See SEC v. Tome, 833 F.2d 1086, 1094 (2d Cir. 1987) (service of process by publication); Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 593 F.2d 166, 176-78 (2d Cir. 1979) (service by mail to last known address); New Eng. Merchs. Nat'l Bank v. Iran Power Generation & Transmission Co., 495 F.Supp. 73, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (service by telex for Iranian defendants); Levin v. Ruby Trading Corp., 248 F.Supp. 537, 541-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) (service by ordinary mail); Forum Fin. Group, LLC v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 199 F.R.D. 22, 23-24 (D. Me. 2001) (service on defendant's attorney); In re Int'l Telemedia Assoc., 245 B.R. 713, 719-20 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000) (service by email).

III. Analysis.

Plaintiffs request that the Court permit them to serve Defendants by alternative means pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3). Doc. 12 at 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are a group of inter-related business entities with actual notice of this lawsuit. Id. In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should be required "to first attempt service on the Defendants through the Hague Convention." Doc. 15 at 4. Plaintiffs aver that "Service of Process has been sent through the Hague, [but] service has not yet been successful" (Doc. 12 at 2), and, "due to the length of time to serve through the Hague, service could continue unnecessary delay" (Doc. 18 at 4).

Plaintiffs argue that they seek alternative service "[b]ased on experience with the Defendants [and] their purposeful evading of service," which has already resulted in this Court granting leave for alternative service in another case involving the same Defendants as parties and the same lawyer as plaintiff's counsel. See AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Sagan, Ltd., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-1269-PHX-DGC, Dkts. 22, 23, 26, 35. In that case, the Court granted leave for alternative service on Defendant Koonar, where a qualified process server appeared at his business location four times only to be refused entry. Id. Likewise, the Court granted leave for alternative service on Defendant Cyberweb/MXN, LTD. after service through the Hague Convention failed. Id. at Dkt. 54. Plaintiffs contend that "Defendants remain unchanged. . . . [and] it is safe to anticipate that process servers will again be refused entrance to the building." Doc. 18 at 3-4.

The Court will permit alternative service. Defendants clearly know of this action as shown by their retention of counsel and their filing of an objection to Plaintiffs' motion. Defendants have sought to evade service in the past. See AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Sagan, Ltd., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-1269-PHX-DGC, Dkts. 22, 23, 26, 35. Moreover, as Plaintiffs note, Defendants have even engaged in settlement talks with Plaintiffs on this case. Permitting alternative service will save time and impose no disadvantage to Defendants.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing under Rule 4(f)(3) and Mullane to justify alternative service. Allowing Plaintiffs to serve Defendants by email clearly will apprise Defendants of the pendency of this action and afford them an opportunity to appear and defend. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. Plaintiffs may complete service by sending the pleadings to Defendants' counsel by email within ten days of this order.1

IT IS ORDERED: