Citation: 930 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1991)
Brief Fact Summary of National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. & Adnan Khashoggi
In this case, Adnan Khashoggi challenged the manner in which he was served legal documents related to a lawsuit. The summons and complaint were delivered to him at a property located in Olympic Tower, New York. Khashoggi contended that this property was not his primary or usual residence and therefore argued that service of process was not valid. The dispute centered around whether the service of process at this location complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule of Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B), service of process may be made by delivering the summons and complaint to a person at the defendant’s “usual place of residence.” The question addressed in this case was how the “usual place of residence” is to be determined, particularly when a person may have more than one residence.
Facts of National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. & Adnan Khashoggi
National Development Company (NDC) was attempting to pursue a legal claim against Adnan Khashoggi and sought to serve him with a summons and complaint. To do so, NDC left these legal documents with Khashoggi’s maid at a property in Olympic Tower, New York. Khashoggi did not appear in the district court to respond to the lawsuit, leading the court to enter a default judgment against him.
Khashoggi then challenged the validity of the service of process, arguing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require service to be made at the defendant’s usual place of residence. According to him, Olympic Tower was not his usual residence, as he considered Saudi Arabia to be his primary place of residence. Therefore, he claimed that the service was improper and that the default judgment should not stand.
The district court, however, disagreed with Khashoggi’s argument and ruled that service at the Olympic Tower residence was proper under the rules. Khashoggi appealed the district court’s decision.
Legal Issue
The core legal issue before the appellate court was whether a person can have more than one place of residence for purposes of service of process under Rule 4(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. More specifically, the court had to decide if service of process is valid when made at a residence where the defendant lives, even if it is not the defendant’s primary or principal residence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding in National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. & Adnan Khashoggi
The court considered the language and purpose of Rule 4(e)(2)(B), which authorizes service at the defendant’s usual place of residence. The court noted that the rule does not require the place of service to be the defendant’s primary or principal residence, but rather a place where the defendant actually resides.
In this case, the court found that Khashoggi did reside at the Olympic Tower property at the time service was effected. His presence there and use of the residence made it one of his usual places of residence, regardless of whether he also had a residence in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.
Since the service of process was delivered to a person residing at the defendant’s usual residence, the court held that the service complied with the requirements of Rule 4. Therefore, the district court’s entry of a default judgment against Khashoggi was proper.
Conclusion
The appellate court in National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. & Adnan Khashoggi affirmed the district court’s judgment, confirming that service of process made at one of a defendant’s usual places of residence is valid even if the defendant maintains multiple residences.
The case clarifies that for service of process under Rule 4(e)(2)(B), the key factor is whether the defendant actually resides at the location where service is made, not whether that location is the defendant’s principal or primary residence.