United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Todd Benjamin International, Ltd. 

and others, Plaintiffs,

v.

TCA Fund Management Group 

Corp. and others, Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-21808-Civ-Scola

Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for 

Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2) or 4(f)(3) (ECF No. 26) seeking this 

Court’s authorization to effectuate service of process by international mail. For 

the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the motion in part. (ECF No. 26.) 

1. Background

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Todd Benjamin International, Ltd., and Mr. 

Todd Benjamin, filed the instant civil action for fraud relating to the Plaintiffs’ 

investments in “a series of Cayman-based hedge funds.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 

1.) The Plaintiffs initially sued “the investment advisor and certain officers and 

directors” of the funds. (Id.) The case was temporarily stayed after a receiver 

was appointed in a separate action against the Defendants by the Securities 

and Exchange Commission. (Order Staying Case, ECF No. 16.) The Plaintiffs 

later moved to reopen the case and amend the complaint to add defendants not 

subject to the receivership, which the Court granted. (Order Lifting Stay, ECF 

No. 20.) The Plaintiffs added several foreign entities in the amended complaint, 

whom they now seek to serve by alternate service of process. 

In their motion, the Plaintiffs request an order authorizing service of 

process by international mail on four foreign Defendants: Grant Thornton 

International Ltd. (“GTIL”), Grant Thornton Cayman Islands (“GTCI”), Grant 

Thornton Ireland (“GTI”), and Bolder Fund Services (Cayman), Ltd. (“Bolder 

Cayman,” and collectively, the “Foreign Defendants”). (“Chino-E”) (Mot. at 1-2.)

According to the Plaintiffs, GTIL is based in the United Kingdom, GTI is based 

in Ireland, and GTCI and Bolder Cayman are based in the Cayman Islands. 

(Mot. at 2-3.) 

Case 1:20-cv-21808-RNS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 1 of 3
2. Analysis

A. Rule 4(f)(2)

Rule 4(f)(2) permits service “if there is no internationally agreed means, 

or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a 

method that is reasonably calculated to give notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2). The 

Hague Convention does not expressly preclude service by international mail.

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504, 1513 (2017) (“in cases governed 

by the Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two 

conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; 

and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.”)

Two of the countries where the Foreign Defendants reside—the United Kingdom

and the Cayman Islands—have not objected to service by mail under the Hague

Convention. Ghostbed, Inc. v. Casper Sleep, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 689, 691 (S.D. Fla. 

2016) (Snow, Mag. J.) (United Kingdom and Cayman Islands). Ireland, on the 

other hand, has objected in part to service under Article 10 of the Hague 

Convention—instead, Ireland requires service to be completed “directly through 

a solicitor in Ireland.” GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund v. Coleridge Fine Arts, No. 14-2303-

EFM-GLR, 2015 WL 622327, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 2015). Finally, the United 

Kingdom and the Cayman Islands statutorily authorize service by mail. (See 

Mot. at 5 nn.1, 3 (citing both countries’ service statutes).) 

Service of process by international mail has been upheld in 

circumstances similar to those here. TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Unlimited PCS 

Inc., 279 F.R.D. 626, 631 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (Ungaro, J.) (collecting cases 

approving service via commercial mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague 

Convention). Service by international mail under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(f)(2) is therefore reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to 

apprise Defendants GTIL, GTCI, and Bolder Cayman of the pending action and 

afford them an opportunity to respond. Ghostbed, 315 F.R.D. at 691. Because 

Ireland objects to service other than through a solicitor located in Ireland, the 

Court denies the motion to serve Defendant GTI under Rule 4(f)(2). 

B. Rule 4(f)(3)

Rule 4(f)(3) permits service “by other means not prohibited by 

international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Service 

pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) is neither “a last resort nor extraordinary relief.” See 

Rio Props. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). All that is 

required is that the proposed service is not prohibited by international 

agreement and such service comports with Constitutional due process, 

Case 1:20-cv-21808-RNS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 2 of 3
meaning that it is “reasonably calculated” to provide the defendants notice and 

an opportunity to defend. See Ghostbed, 315 F.R.D. at 693. 

The Hague Convention does not expressly preclude service by 

international mail. See id. As under Rule 4(f)(2), service of process by 

international mail has been upheld under Rule 4(f)(3) in circumstances similar 

to those here. See, e.g., id. Therefore, Defendants GTIL, GTCI, and Bolder 

Cayman may be properly served by international mail under Rule 4(f)(3).1

Service by international mail is therefore reasonably calculated, under all 

circumstances, to apprise Defendants GTIL, GTCI, and Bolder Cayman of the 

pending action and afford them an opportunity to respond.

For these reasons, the Court grants in part the Plaintiffs’ motion. (ECF 

No. 26.) The Clerk is directed to dispatch a copy of the Summons, Amended 

Complaint, and this Order via international mail for service upon Defendants 

GTIL, GTCI, and Bolder Cayman. The Plaintiffs are directed to deliver the 

required documents and addresses to the Clerk’s office so that it may carry out 

this Order. The Plaintiffs are also permitted to serve the Summonses, 

Amended Complaint, and all other filings and discovery in this matter upon 

Defendants GTIL, GTCI, and Bolder Cayman by sending the Summons, 

Amended Complaint, and this Order to those Defendants via international 

mail. The Plaintiffs shall file an international mail proof of signature, under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)(2)(B), as proof of service for each of the 

Foreign Defendants. The Plaintiffs’ motion is denied, albeit without prejudice, 

as to Defendant GTI due to Ireland’s partial objection to Article 10(a) of the 

Hague Convention. 

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 25, 2022. 

 

 ____________________________ 

 Robert N. Scola, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

1 Ireland’s partial objection to alternate service under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention 

similarly prevents alternate service on Defendant GTI under Rule 4(f)(3). GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund, 

2015 WL 622327, at *1. 

Case 1:20-cv-21808-RNS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 3 of 3