Does service by email on the U.S. counsel of a foreign party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) violate the Hague-Service-Convention?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In cases where the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 (“Hague Service Convention”) applies, it “provide[s] the exclusive means of valid service.” Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705 (1988). The means of service stated in the Hague Service Convention do not include service by email. In the decision below, however, the Tenth Circuit approved service by email on the U.S. counsel of foreign defendants. It also held that personal jurisdiction was satisfied because the U.S. contacts— even if they were not the actual cause of the plaintiff's claim—formed part of the “narrative” of the case. The questions presented are: 1. Does service by email on the U.S. counsel of a foreign party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) violate the Hague Service Convention? 2. Does a case satisfy the “arising out of” test for personal jurisdiction merely because meetings in the United States were part of the “narrative” of the case, notwithstanding that the governing contract was formed and the alleged breach occurred outside the United States? (i)