Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
National Specialty Insurance Company filed an interpleader action concerning claims arising from a June 28, 2025 multi-fatality motor vehicle accident in Kaufman County, Texas. The insurer had issued a commercial automobile policy to Hope Trans LLC, which owned the Freightliner semi-tractor involved in the accident. Defendants Aishat Magomedova and Sarvar Muradov allegedly were former owners of Hope Trans.
After the defendants’ common attorney declined requests to waive service, a process server made four unsuccessful attempts to serve Magomedova and Muradov at their believed joint residence in Orlando, Florida. The server observed vehicles and a stroller at the property and found the defendants’ names on the call box, but no one answered the door or call box. The insurer therefore sought permission to attach the summonses and amended complaint to the residence’s front door.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the insurer’s motion for substituted service. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits service under the law of either the state where the district court sits or the state where service is made. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b), together with Rule 108 for nonresidents, allows a court to authorize another reasonably effective method after unsuccessful traditional service attempts documented by the required sworn statement.
The insurer’s supporting affidavit and the process server’s returns strictly satisfied Rule 106(b). The names on the call box corroborated that Magomedova and Muradov lived at the address, while the recurring presence of personal items and different vehicles indicated habitation and activity. On that record, attaching the summonses and amended complaint to the front door was reasonably likely to provide actual notice of the suit.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court may authorize substituted service under the service rules of the state where it sits, even when service will occur in another state.
- A Rule 106(b) request must be supported by a sworn statement identifying where the defendants probably can be found and detailing unsuccessful traditional service attempts there.
- Repeated observations showing that defendants reside at and use a property can support a finding that front-door posting is reasonably likely to provide notice.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the evidence needed to obtain substituted service under Texas procedure. Multiple documented attempts, corroboration linking the defendants to the address, and visible signs of ongoing occupancy supported moving beyond personal service.
For litigants facing an apparently occupied residence where no one answers, the decision confirms that posting process on the front door may be approved when the supporting evidence shows that method is reasonably calculated to notify the defendants.