UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1887
TEKSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ASAD KHAN,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
RK TEKSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; REGISTER.COM, INCORPORATED,
Defendants,
LUBNA KHAN,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-01220-GBL)
Submitted: March 11, 2008 Decided: April 15, 2008
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Asad Khan, Appellant Pro Se. W. Damon Dennis, SAUL EWING, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Asad Khan appeals the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, entering judgment in
favor of Teksystems, Inc., awarding Teksystems $1,800,000 in
damages, and denying the defendants leave to file an amended
answer. Kahn argues he was denied due process of law and that the
district court erred by not allowing him to amend his answer. He
claims the district court denied him due process of law by not
providing sufficient notice of the hearings. He blames the clerk
of court for sending hearing notices to an invalid address even
though he noted his correct address in his answer to the complaint,
and states the hearing notices addressed to RK Teksystems were not
sufficient notice to him.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States from
depriving any person of property without due process of law.
Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002). Due process
requires that individuals with property interests at stake be given
notice and the opportunity to be heard. Id. Notice must be
“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover
Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). The notice must be of
a nature as to “reasonably convey the required information.” Id.
In other words, the method of notice “‘must be such as one desirous
- 3 -
of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to
accomplish it.’” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 229 (2006)
(quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315).
Khan’s summons was issued to him at 7420 Alban Station
Boulevard. The summons for RK Teksystems was issued to Lubna Khan,
Khan’s wife, as the company’s registered agent, at 7111 Tanworth
Drive. The temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
order set the time and date for the final hearing in the case.
Khan testified that he received a copy of the temporary restraining
order some time in November 2006. Khan responded pro se with a
letter to the district court. The letter listed his address as
7111 Tanworth Drive.
Neither RK Teksystems nor Khan appeared at the hearing.
The district court issued a permanent restraining order and order
for injunctive relief and referred the issue of damages to a
magistrate judge. The affidavit of a personal process server
stated she personally served Kahn with a copy of the permanent
restraining order at 7111 Tanworth Drive by serving his wife, Lubna
Khan.
Teksystems submitted evidence on the issue of damages.
Neither RK Teksystems nor Khan appeared at the hearing on damages.
The magistrate judge recommended an award of $1,800,000. The
docket report reflects that the magistrate judge’s report and
- 4 -
recommendation mailed to Khan was returned as undeliverable on
March 5, 2007.
Teksystems and the district court sent documents both to
Khan individually, as the alleged operator of RK Teksystems, at the
Alban Station address, and to RK Teksystems, care of Khan’s wife,
at 7111 Tanworth Drive. Although Khan no longer used the Alban
Station address, the court did not receive notice of this fact
until March 5, 2007, approximately five months after the case
began, when a mailing was returned as undeliverable. Khan did in
fact receive the complaint delivered to 7111 Tanworth Drive and
filed an answer with the district court. His answer listed his
address as 7111 Tanworth Drive, but did not inform the court or
Teksystems that the Alban Station address was no longer valid.
The method the district court used to notify Khan of its
orders and upcoming hearings was reasonably calculated to reach
Khan. Particularly since Khan responded to the complaint and did
not indicate any problem with the method of service or addresses,
the district court and magistrate judge acted reasonably in
continuing the same method of notification as used for the
complaint.
As for Kahn’s argument that the district court erred by
refusing to grant leave to amend his answer, the denial of a motion
to amend a pleading is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 316 (4th Cir. 2000). An abuse of
- 5 -
the district court’s discretion occurs when the court fails or
refuses to exercise its discretion, or when the district court’s
exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual
premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).
Regarding pleadings to which no responsive pleading is
permitted, Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that if “the action has not been placed upon the trial
calendar, the party may . . . amend [as a matter of course] at any
time within 20 days after it is served.” Otherwise, a party may
only amend the pleading “by leave of court or by written consent of
the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) leave to
amend shall be given freely absent any apparent reason, such as bad
faith, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of
amendment. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Davis v.
Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir. 1980). The
district court concluded that any amendment of Khan’s answer would
be futile because Khan did not file his motion until after the
district court issued an injunction, a permanent restraining order,
and referred the case to the magistrate judge on the issue of
damages.
Khan did not seek leave to file an amended answer until
approximately five months after the district court issued a
temporary restraining order, and Khan filed his initial answer four
months after the district court issued a permanent restraining
- 6 -
order, and over one month after the magistrate judge completed his
report and recommendation. The district court correctly found that
allowing Khan to amend his answer at that point in time would have
been futile.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Similarly, we deny Khan’s motion to file a formal brief because
Khan’s arguments are fully set forth in his informal brief and
further briefing would not be of additional assistance.
AFFIRMED
- 7 -