National Specialty Insurance Company v. Hope Trans, LLC et al

3:25-cv-02791Txnd23 gen 2026

Testo completo

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NATIONAL SPECIALTY 	§
INSURANCE COMPANY, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-2791-L-BW
§
HOPE TRANS LLC, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff National Specialty Insurance Company (“NSIC”) filed a Motion for
Substituted Service of Defendants Aishat Magomedova and Sarvar Muradov on
January 21, 2026. (Dkt. No. 56.) For the reasons explained below, the motion is
GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a multi-fatality motor vehicle accident that occurred
in Kaufman County, Texas, on June 28, 2025. NSIC had issued a commercial auto
insurance policy to Hope Trans LLC, owner of a Freightliner semi-tractor involved
in the accident. (See Dkt. No. 11 (“Am. Compl.”).) NSIC brought this interpleader
action to resolve numerous claims that have been made on its policy. Included
among the defendants are Magomedova and Muradov, who are alleged to be former
owners of Hope Trans. (Id. ¶¶ 6.5, 6.6.)
1 United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay has referred this case to the
undersigned magistrate judge for pretrial management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
(Dkt. No. 4.)
Case 3:25-cv-02791-L-BW Document 57 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>
-2-
NSIC details in the instant motion the attempts it has made to bring
Magomedova and Muradov into this action. After requests for waivers of service
through these defendants’ common attorney were declined, NSIC employed a
process server to attempt service at their joint residence, which was believed to be
8431 Prestbury Drive in Orlando, Florida. The process server made four attempts to
serve the defendants at that address—thrice during morning hours and once in the
evening—between December 1 and December 12, 2025, each time receiving no
answer at the door. The process server noted each time that there was a stroller on
the front porch and a vehicle parked in the driveway. The vehicle in the driveway on
the fourth visit was not the same as the one observed during the first three attempts.
On the fourth visit, the process server also noted that the defendants’ names were on
the call box, but there also was no answer on the call box.
NSIC requests authorization to serve Magomedova and Muradov by other
means. Specifically, it asks to serve them by attaching a copy of the summonses and
amended complaint to the front door of their residence. NSIC specially notes that it
does not seek authorization to serve these defendants through electronic means
under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2) because their social media and other electronic
accounts are unknown to NSIC.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that “an individual . . . may be
served in a judicial district of the United States by . . . following state law for serving
Case 3:25-cv-02791-L-BW Document 57 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>
-3-
a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where
the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
This Court is located in the state of Texas, and NSIC seeks to effect service in
Florida. Its motion is premised on effecting substituted service by means authorized
by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106, which provides:
(a) Unless the citation or court order otherwise directs, the citation must
be served by:
(1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a copy of
the citation, showing the delivery date, and of the
petition; or
(2) mailing to the defendant by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the
citation and of the petition.
(b) Upon motion supported by a statement—sworn to before a notary or
made under penalty of perjury—listing any location where the
defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts
showing that service has been attempted under (a)(1) or (a)(2) at the
location named in the statement but has not been successful, the court
may authorize service:
(1) by leaving a copy of the citation and of the
petition with anyone older than sixteen at the
location specified in the statement; or
(2) in any other manner, including electronically by
social media, email, or other technology, that the
statement or other evidence shows will be
reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of
the suit.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106.
So, under Texas Rule 106(b), if a plaintiff’s attempts to serve a defendant in
person or by registered or certified mail are unsuccessful, a court may authorize
Case 3:25-cv-02791-L-BW Document 57 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>
-4-
substituted service only after receiving the required sworn statement and only in a
manner that is reasonably calculated to provide notice. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b);
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. 1993). If a defendant
is absent or a nonresident of Texas, that defendant still may be served in the same
manner as a resident defendant. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 108.
As to the sworn statement requirement, “[t]he court may authorize substituted
service pursuant to Rule 106(b) only if the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit strictly
complies with the requirements of the Rule.” Mockingbird Dental Grp., P.C. v.
Carnegie, No. 4:15-CV-404-A, 2015 WL 4231746, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2015)
(citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). The supporting sworn
statement must state (1) “the location of the defendant’s usual place of business or
usual place of abode or other place where the defendant can probably be found” and
(2) “specifically the facts showing that” traditional service under Rule 106(a) has
been attempted “at the location named in the statement but has not been successful.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b).
III. ANALYSIS
NSIC’s counsel, Dacy L. Ibach, provides an affidavit in support of the motion
to establish the steps that have been taken to effect personal service on Magomedova
and Muradov, and her affidavit attaches the returns of non-service executed by Jason
A. Kromash, the process server who attempted service at the defendants’ home. (See
Dkt. No. 56-1.) Together they document the four attempts to serve the defendants
and observations from those attempts recounted above.
Case 3:25-cv-02791-L-BW Document 57 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>
-5-
NSIC’s motion is supported by an affidavit that complies with Tex. R. Civ. P.
106(b). It establishes several unsuccessful attempts to serve Magomedova and
Muradov at their residence and, based on the names observed on the call box,
corroborates that they reside there. Additionally, the regular observation of personal
items and a vehicle—including a different vehicle on the final attempt—provides
some indicia of habitation and activity.
Based on the affidavit and attachments, the Court concludes that an
alternative method of service is appropriate under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b). Courts
have allowed substituted service by attaching a copy of the summons and complaint
on the front door of a defendant’s residence. See, e.g., First Call Int'l, Inc. v. S&B Glob.,
Inc., No. 4:23-CV-199-P, 2023 WL 10674963, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2023)
(collecting cases); Sanchez v. Hogan, No. 3:19-CV-2190-BH, 2020 WL 470223, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2020). NSIC has shown that affixing copies of the summonses
and amended complaint to the front door of the defendants’ residence at 8431
Prestbury Drive, Orlando, Florida is reasonably likely to give the defendants actual
notice of the lawsuit as required. Therefore, the Court finds that this manner of
substitute service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 102(b)(2) is appropriate.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for
Substituted Service of Defendants Aishat Magomedova and Sarvar Muradov. (See
Dkt. No. 56.)
Case 3:25-cv-02791-L-BW Document 57 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>
-6-
SO ORDERED on January 23, 2026.
__________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02791-L-BW Document 57 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.