De Gazelle Group, Inc. v. Tamaz Trading Establishment, No. 15-13543 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseTamaz, a Saudi Arabian company, appealed the denial of its Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a default judgment against it as void for lack of service of process. Tamaz argues that the district court erred in concluding that De Gazelle had properly served it using Federal Express, when that means of service is not specifically authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and De Gazelle had not received prior court authorization to serve Tamaz using that method. The court agreed, concluding that when De Gazelle FedExed the summons and complaint to Tamaz’s post office box on September 21, 2013, it was not acting pursuant to a court order. In fact, De Gazelle did not seek court authorization to serve Tamaz via Federal Express until the magistrate judge denied its first motion for a default judgment on the ground that De Gazelle failed to show that service via FedEx was authorized under Rule 4. Furthermore, the magistrate judge’s reliance, in later finding that service had been effected on September 21, 2013, on evidence showing that Althawadi, Tamaz’s registered agent, had actual notice of the lawsuit was misplaced, since notice does not confer personal jurisdiction on a defendant when it has not been served in accordance with Rule 4. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.