## Facts

- Mashud Parves Rana, a Bangladeshi citizen, was hired in Bangladesh to work as a domestic worker for Monirul Islam and Fahima Tahsina Prova while Islam served as Bangladesh’s Consul General in New York City.
- Rana alleged defendants recruited him with promises of fair wages and working conditions, but then subjected him to forced labor, threats, and physical coercion, and failed to pay promised wages.
- Rana asserted claims under federal anti-trafficking law (18 U.S.C. § 1589 et seq.), the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and related state-law theories including fraud and tort claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the fraud claim was inadequately pleaded, (2) the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to consular immunity, and (3) service of process was insufficient.
- Rana made multiple attempts to serve defendants; defendants relocated abroad and were represented by U.S. counsel with notice of the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the fraudulent misrepresentation claim satisfied Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement and stated a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Whether consular immunity deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) for alleged conduct tied to defendants’ private household employment.
3. Whether the case should be dismissed for insufficient service under Rule 12(b)(5), or whether the court could authorize alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3).

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss in full.
- The court held the fraud claim was pleaded with sufficient specificity to satisfy Rule 9(b).
- The court held defendants were not immune from suit because the alleged conduct involved private household employment, not consular functions.
- The court declined to dismiss for insufficient service and authorized alternative service by serving defendants’ attorneys under Rule 4(f)(3) by a court-ordered deadline.

## Legal Principles

- Consular immunity is functional, covering only acts performed in the exercise of consular functions; private conduct such as employing a domestic worker is outside that scope.
- A consular officer’s spouse does not receive broader immunity for private, non-consular acts.
- A fraud claim meets Rule 9(b) when it alleges with particularity who made the misrepresentations, their content, when and where they were made, and why they were false.
- Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may permit alternative service on foreign defendants (including service on U.S. counsel) when reasonably calculated to give notice and not prohibited by international agreement, especially where defendants have notice and conventional service is impracticable.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed by finding no consular immunity for the alleged private domestic-employment misconduct, holding the fraud allegations sufficiently particular, and permitting alternative service on defendants’ attorneys to cure service difficulties.


Rana v. Islam, 305 F.R.D. 53 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)