Financial Indemnity Company v. Edwards et al

Filing 34

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Leave to Serve Jin Edwards Through Alternative Means. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 5 FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, 6 Case No. 2:14–cv–484–MMD–VCF vs. 7 JIN EDWARDS, et al., ORDER 8 Defendant. 9 10 This matter involves Financial Indemnity Services’ actions for declaratory relief against Jin 11 Edwards, Chin Edwards, Anthony Spann, and Joseph Corpuz. (See Compl. (#1) at 9–10). Before the 12 court is Financial Indemnity Services’ motion for leave to serve Jin Edwards through alternative means 13 14 (#33). The motion is unopposed. For the reasons stated below, Financial Indemnity Services’ motion is granted. 15 BACKGROUND 16 Jin Edwards is insured by Financial Indemnity Services. On April 26, 2012, Jin allegedly caused 17 18 19 a car accident. (See Pl.’s Mot. (#33) at 2:7). As a result, Chin Edwards, Anthony Spann, and Joseph Corpuz sustained injuries. (Id.) On April 1, 2014, Financial Indemnity Services commenced this action. 20 It seeks declaratory relief to determine whether “a pre-lawsuit settlement agreement . . . should be 21 enforced.” (Id. at 2:10–11). 22 Financial Indemnity Services’ deadline to serve Jin Edwards will expire on September 28, 2014. 23 (See Order #22). To date, however, Financial Indemnity Services has been unable to serve Jin Edwards. 24 It hired a private investigator, Ally Investigations; but no progress has been made. Consequently, on 25 August 19, 2014, Financial Indemnity Services filed the instant motion for leave to serve Jin Edwards 1 2 3 4 through alternative means. The company seeks to serve Jin Edwards under Nevada Revised Statute 14.070(1), which permits plaintiffs to serve defendants through the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Rule 4 governs service of the summons and complaint. Rule 4(e) stated that “[u]nless federal law 6 provides otherwise, an individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the United States by 7 following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the 8 state where the district court is located.” In turn, Nevada Revised Statute 14.070(1) provides that a state- 9 court plaintiff may serve a defendant through the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles “in any action 10 or proceeding . . . growing out of” the use of a motor vehicle that is registered in Nevada. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Financial Indemnity Services’ motion is granted for two reasons. First, none of the previously 13 14 15 16 served defendants oppose the motion. Under Local Rule 7-2, this constitutes consent to the granting of the motion. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”). 17 Second, Financial Indemnity Services satisfied its burden under Nevada Revised Statute 18 14.070(1). The statute places an “affirmative obligation to diligently search for the resident motorist 19 defendants to determine whether they have departed the state or cannot be located within the state” 20 before serving the defendant through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Mendakota Ins. Co. v. Vargas- 21 22 Antigua, No. 2:13–cv–00238–RCJ–CWH, 2013 WL 2096415 at *3 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013) (citing Austin v. C & L Trucking, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 465 (1985); Browning v. Dixon, 114 Nev. 213 (1998)). 23 Financial Indemnity Services met this burden. It retained a private investigator, Ally Investigations, and 24 25 2 1 2 has been diligently searching for Jin Edwards since it commenced this action. (See, e.g., Doc. #22) (seeking an extension of time to serve Jin Edwards). 3 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 4 IT IS ORDERED that Financial Indemnity Services’ motion for leave to serve Jin Edwards 5 through alternative means (#33) is GRANTED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED this 8th day of September, 2014. 8 _________________________ CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?