Sunday, November 24, 2013

National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. & Adnan Khashoggi case brief

National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. & Adnan Khashoggi case brief summary
930 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1991)


CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant foreign citizen sought review of an order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which denied appellant's motion to vacate a default judgment against him. Appellant contended that personal jurisdiction was not effected by appellee United States corporation's service of process because appellant's residence was in Saudi Arabia, and he was improperly served at his New York apartment.

CASE FACTS
Appellee United States corporation sought to compel appellant foreign citizen to arbitrate a conversion action filed by them for funds appellant allegedly improperly converted when a joint venture was dissolved. Appellant was served with the summons and complaint at his New York apartment. Appellant claimed he was a resident of Saudi Arabia, where he maintained a large compound. Appellant testified that he was present in Saudi Arabia for only three months of the year in which he was served, and that his New York apartment was only one of twelve locations around the world where he spent his time.

DISCUSSION

  • The court noted that for purposes of personal jurisdiction, a person could have two or more dwelling houses or usual places of abode, provided each contained sufficient indicia of permanence. 
  • The court affirmed the district court's order, which denied appellant's motion to vacate a default judgment, concluding that service of process on appellant was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) because the New York apartment where appellant was actually living at the time service was effected was a dwelling house or usual place of abode for purposes of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the district court's order, which denied appellant foreign citizen's motion to vacate a default judgment, because appellee United States corporation's service of process on appellant was proper where appellant was actually living at the time service was effected, although appellant had more than one usual place of abode.

Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.