III. CONCLUSION. For the reasons set forth above, all Defendants have received notice of the Default Judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1608(e) and a reasonable period of time has elapsed following the entry of Default Judgment and the giving of notice to the Defendants. Therefore, the Court should enter an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) authorizing the Wultzes to enforce the Default Judgment.

See Iskandar, 106 F. Supp. 3d at 229-30 (quotations omitted). Similarly, in Howe, the court dismissed an action against the Embassy of Italy after finding “that the plaintiff failed to effect service properly on the defendant pursuant to § 1608(a), which deprive[d] th[e] Court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Howe, 68 F. Supp. 3d at 34.

; it is, ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve process in this action upon the defendants in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1608(4) by service through diplomatic channels, by addressing and dispatching by certified mail, return receipt requested, two copies each of the summons, complaint and notice of suit (prepared in accordance with 22 CFR §93.2), translated into Farsi, for each of the two defendants, as plaintiffs shall provide, to Case 1:06-cv-00596-RCL Document 10 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 6 of 7 the Secretary of State of The United States of America, to the attention of Edward Betancourt, U.S. Department of State, Office of Policy Review & Interagency Liaison, SA-29 4 Floor, 2201th C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20520 (or such other office as the U.S. Department of State may direct, by regulation or order, for such process), for service of those documents on defendants through diplomatic channels, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1608(a)(4).

Here, sophisticated commercial entities and those who represent them either did not bother to 26 review, or intentionally ignored, the law governing service on an agency or instrentality of a 27 foreign governent. Even a cursory glance at Rule 4 would have revealed that with regard to foreign 28 governental entities, 28 U.S.c. § 1608 is the controlling law for service. See Rule 4(j)(1).

A copy of a Certificate of Mailing from the Clerk of Court to the Department of State is attached hereto as Exhibit G. On January 25, 2013, Mr. William P. Fritzlen of the Department of State informed the Clerk of Court via correspondence that service would only be effectuated on eight (8) of the sixteen (16) Iranian Defendants. See letter by William P. Fritzlen to Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court dated January 25, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit H. The eight Sovereign Defendants that would not be served were considered “agencies and instrumentalities” by the Department of State and, therefore, the Court would first be required to issue letters rogatory under 28 U.S.C. §1608(b)(3)(A) for the Department of State to assist with service of the following Defendants: (1) Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran; (2) Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Chairman, Expediency Discernment Counsel and former President of Iran; (3) National Iranian Tanker Corporation; (4) National Iranian Oil Corporation; (5) National Iranian Gas Corporation; (6) National Iranian Petrochemical Company; (7) Iran Airlines; and (8) Hezbollah. The Department of State assured the Havlish Plaintiffs that service upon the remaining eight (8) Iranian Defendants would be effectuated as requested.

er and judgment of liability in favor of the Hoglan Plaintiffs against all sixteen (16) of the Iranian Defendants. Upon entry of such orders by this Court, the Hoglan Plaintiffs request that, as in Havlish, this action be referred to the Honorable Frank Maas, U.S. Magistrate Judge, to receive evidence of damages, within thirty (30) days, as to all of the Hoglan Plaintiffs and to make, forthwith, a Report and Recommendation on damages to the Court. III. CONCLUSION In light of the above, the Hoglan Plaintiffs respectfully request that the attached proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be entered in this case, and that an Order of Judgment be entered decreeing that the Iranian Defendants have been properly served with the Second Amended Complaint and are in default for failing to respond as required by 28 U.S.C. §1608(d), and, further, that the Plaintiffs have established their claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1608(e). Respectfully submitted, Date: July 10, 2015 /s/ Timothy B. Fleming_____ Timothy B. Fleming (DC Bar No. 351114) WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB PLLC 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 720 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-4489 Dennis G. Pantazis (AL Bar No.

Although Semtek's Affidavit of Service also alleges that a similar package was sent to Zheleznogorsk, Russia, there is absolutely no evidence in the record to demonstrate that any such package was signed for. See Affidavit of Service (Dkt. No. 10), ¶ 7 & Ex. B. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1608(b)(3)(B) (service by mail under third tier of FSIA requires a "form of mail requiring a signed receipt"). Absent evidence regarding the identity of the person signing for this package, or any indication that the summons itself also was signed, Semtek's attempt at service was not reasonably calculated to give ISS actual notice, and therefore failed to effectuate proper service under the FSIA. Accordingly, the default judgment entered in this case is void because of Semtek's failure to effectuate service properly. Case 1:09-cv-10183-RWZ Document 35 Filed 06/08/11 Page 32 of 52

Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 1:08-cv- 01273-RCL (D.D.C. Jun. 8, 2003). Chief Judge Lamberth found “no basis in the FSIA to suggest that any longer period is needed, particularly in comparison to the period of time – 60 days, 28 U.S.C. §1608(e) - that a foreign sovereign is given to respond to initial service of a complaint and summons under the Act.” Id.

The addressee who has refused to accept the writ of summons or another court notice is deemed to have been notified of the place, date, and time of a respective court proceeding or another particular proceeding. 3 Plaintiff therefore requests the Court to authorize the Clerk of the Court to effect service on defendant ISS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1608(b)(3)(B), by dispatching copies of the summons and complaint using the United States Postal Service Global Express Guaranteed Service.

Gold Reserve’s Pursuit of Service Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4) Was Proper. Respondent mistakenly suggests that Gold Reserve has improperly pursued service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4). See D.E. 14 at 3.