United States of America v. Alliance Mechanical, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER that 29 Motion for Entry of Clerks Default is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendant Alliance/Penta. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/7/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 9 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the use of BOMBARD MECHANICAL, LLC, 10 2:12-CV-1088 JCM (CWH) Plaintiff(s), 8 11 v. 12 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL, INC., et al., 13 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 ORDER 17 Presently before the court is plaintiff United States’ motion for entry of clerk’s default, (doc. 18 #29) against defendant Alliance/Penta, a joint venture (“defendant Alliance/Penta”). 19 I. Background 20 On June 25, 2012, plaintiff filed its complaint. (Doc. #1). On September 17, 2012, plaintiff 21 filed a motion seeking an enlargement of time to serve defendant and to serve defendant 22 Alliance/Penta by way of publication. (Docs. #16, #17). Both of these motions were granted by the 23 magistrate judge.1 (Doc. #18). 24 In conjunction with the instant motion, plaintiff’s counsel filed an affidavit swearing that 25 service by publication was issued upon defendant Alliance/Penta on five separate dates and that more 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 The magistrate judge granted a 60-day extension to complete service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, extending the deadline to December 24, 2012. (Doc. #18, 4:3-4). 1 than 21 days had elapsed without a response. (Doc. #29, 2:1-7). 2 II. Legal Standard 3 “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead 4 or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the 5 party’s default.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). A motion is not necessary. 6 However, in order to show that clerk’s default is appropriate, proof of service by publication 7 is required and must comply with Nev.R.Civ.P. 4(g)(3)-(4).2 See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(h)(1)(a); (see doc. 8 #18, 3:2-27). 9 III. Discussion 10 Here, plaintiff is asking for entry of clerk’s default. However, its proof of service by 11 publication is insufficient. See NEV.R.CIV.P. 4(g)(3). The aforementioned affidavit from the 12 plaintiff’s attorney is not adequate. (Doc. #29).3 Provided that plaintiff has failed to provide proper 13 proof of service and the deadline to do so has expired, defendant Alliance/Penta is dismissed under 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.4 15 IV. Conclusion 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for entry 18 of clerk’s default (doc. #29) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 19 ... 20 ... 21 ... 22 23 24 25 26 2 Rules 4(g)(3)-(4) of the NRCP require that: “(3) In case of publication, the affidavit of the publisher, foreman or principal clerk, or other employee having knowledge thereof, showing the same, and an affidavit of a deposit of a copy of the summons in the post office, if the same shall have been deposited; or, (4) The written admission of the defendant.” 3 Rather, an “affidavit of the publisher, foreman or principal clerk, or other employee having knowledge thereof, showing the same,” was required. NEV.R.CIV.P. 4(g)(3). 4 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that, “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff– must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” -2- 1 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendant Alliance/Penta. DATED February 7, 2013. 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?