to obtain jurisdiction over nonresident defendants under the FAA. See Kirby Morgan Dive Sys., Inc. v. Hydrospace Ltd., No. 09-4934, 2010 WL 234791, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (finding that when a nonresident, foreign defendant was not served by a marshal in a judicial district within the United States, “such service does not give the Court personal jurisdiction over Smith under § 9”); Med. Shoppe Int’l, Inc. v. Med. Solutions, Inc., No. 4:06MC622 CDP, 2006 WL 3538800, at *1 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 9 and noting without further explanation that “service must be made ‘by the marshal [¶]... ] in like manner as other process of the Court.’ ”); Nu-Best Franchising, Inc. v. Motion Dynamics, Inc., No. 805CV507T27TGW, 2006 WL 1428319, at *3, *6 (M.D.Fla. May 17, 2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Dobco, Inc. v. Mery Gates, Inc., No.
holding in the analogous context of a motion to vacate an arbitration award under 9 usc  12 that pjlaintiffs were required to serve notice through the united states marshal and that because the notice requirement expressly addresses the manner of serving notice of motion to vacate   the federal rules of procedure  relating to service are inapplicable holding that because the federal arbitration act provides that requests for relief should be made by motion rather than by filing a complaint the rules of notice pleading provided for in fedrcivp 8 do not apply to a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment holding that the three month limitation of faa  12 on a motion to vacate an award did not apply to a state court motion to vacate because the procedural aspects of the faa are confined to federal cases holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner