Brief Fact Summary.
Adnan Khashoggi appealed the propriety of service of process after he was served with a summons and complaint at a property he did not consider his primary place of residence.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Service of process is proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B) at the defendant’s usual place of residence.
National Development Company (NDC) attempted to serve Adnan Khashoggi (Adnan) by leaving the summons and complaint with Adnan’s maid at Adnan’s Olympic Tower residence. Adnan failed to show up to district court and a default judgment was entered against him. Adnan argued that service of process was improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4(e)(2)(B) because Saudi Arabia, rather than Olympic Tower, was his usual place of residence. The district court held that service was proper and Adnan appealed.
Whether a person may have more than one place of residence for service of process to be sufficient under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Yes. Because Khashoggi was living in the Olympic Tower residence at the time he was served with the summons and complaint, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A person can have two or more dwelling houses or usual places of abode provided each contains sufficient indicia of permanence.View Full Point of Law
A defendant may have several places of residence where process can be served. As long as there is some suggestion that a place of residence has some level of permanence, a defendant can be served with a summons and complaint at that location, even if the defendant has multiple primary places of residence.