Krohn v. Equity Title, LLC et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Serve. Plaintiff shall have until 12/8/2014, to serve Defendants with process. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/6/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

SHELLEY D. KROHN, Chapter 7 Trustee,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 2:14-cv-00620-RFB-PAL

v.

ORDER
(Mtn for Svs by Publ’n – Dkt. #30)

EQUITY TITLE, LLC, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Shelley D. Krohn, the chapter 7 trustee of the

14

bankruptcy estate of William Walter Plise’s, Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants

15

and to Serve Defendants by Publication (Dkt. #30). The Motion is supported by Affidavits of

16

Diligence from Plantiff’s process servers and an Affidavit of Reda M. Hicks, Plaintiff’s counsel.

17

The court has considered the Motion and supporting affidavits.

18

Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Dkt. #1) on April 22, 2014, and began efforts to serve

19

summons on April 25, 2014. Plaintiff served Defendants Equity Title LLC and Robert Evans.

20

See Summons Returned Executed (Dkt. ##15, 16). Since April 25, 2014, Plaintiff has attempted

21

to serve Defendants William W. Plise, James L. Moore, and Aquila Management LLC multiple

22

times using local process servers. The Affidavits of Due Diligence from Plaintiff’s process

23

servers, attached as Exhibit A to the Motion, aver that on April 30, 2014, a process server

24

Barbara Stinnett attempted service on Plise at 12624 Calistoga Way, Austin, Texas, 78732. The

25

current resident of that home advised that her daughter was renting the home and had moved in

26

approximately six weeks earlier. The process server attempted to confirm this information with

27

the neighbor across the street, but no one answered the door.

28

///

1

Plaintiff’s process server Maurice Hicks attempted to serve Plise at 2711 W. Windmill

2

Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89123 on May 6, and May 29, 2014. Mr. Hicks’ affidavit represents

3

that the resort manager at the RV park refused to give Mr. Plise’s location on the property but

4

confirmed Plise did live there. The affidavit further indicates the community was guard gated,

5

and the guard only granted access to the front office and not the rest of the property without

6

permission of the resident.

7

On May 2, 3, and 5, 2014, Hicks attempted to serve Defendant James L. Moore at 31 Sky

8

Bird Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89135. On May 2, 2014, the guard confirmed Moore was a

9

resident in the gated community and escorted Hicks to the address. No one answered the door on

10

that date, or on the third or the fifth. On May 5, 2014, however, the process server observed

11

lights on in the residence, two cars parked in front of the residence, and two cars parked in the

12

driveway behind the residence.

13

Additionally, the affidavit of counsel represents that counsel contacted Plise’s bankruptcy

14

attorney for additional addresses at which Defendants might be served.

Further, counsel

15

indicates that Plise is the resident agent for Defendant Aquila Management, LLC. Counsel also

16

searched public records, Westlaw, and LexisNexis, but those searches produced no additional

17

addresses for Defendants.

18

Plaintiff believes Defendants are actively avoiding service, and therefore, requests

19

permission to serve Defendants by publication. In addition, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time

20

to serve the Complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

21

mandates the court extend the deadline where good cause is shown. Plaintiff asserts that good

22

cause exists because Defendants are evading service. Plaintiff contends no prejudice will result

23

from the requested extension because the deadlines in this case are stayed pending resolution of

24

the Motion to Dismiss.

25

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of summons, and it

26

mandates that service of process must be made within 120 days of filing the complaint. See Fed.

27

R. Civ. P. 4(m). If service of summons and complaint is not made in that time, the Rule

28

provides:

-2-

the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the
plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that
defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time;
provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the
court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

1
2
3
4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

6

Plaintiff=s complaint was filed on April 22, 2014. Thus, Plaintiff must have served

7

process no later than August 20, 2014, the date the Motion was filed, in compliance with Rule

8

4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

9

II.

Request for Service by Publication.

10

Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for service upon individuals

11

within the United States by Afollowing state law for serving a summons in an action brought in

12

courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is

13

made.@ Id. In Nevada, NRCP 4 governs service of process. Parties are required to personally

14

serve summons and the complaint upon a defendant; however, when personal service proves

15

impossible, NRCP 4(e)(1)(i) provides that a party may move for service by publication when the

16

opposing party Aresides out of the state, or has departed from the state, or cannot, after due

17

diligence be found within the state, or conceals himself to avoid the service of summons.@ Id.

18

A party seeking service by publication must seek leave of court by filing an affidavit

19

demonstrating its due diligence in attempting to personally serve the defendant. See NRCP

20

4(e)(1)(i). A party seeking service by publication must seek leave of court by filing an affidavit

21

demonstrating its due diligence in attempting to personally serve the defendant. There are

22

several key factors Nevada courts look to in evaluating a party=s due diligence in effecting

23

service. Nevada courts principally consider the number of attempts made by a plaintiff to serve a

24

defendant at his or her residence and other methods of locating defendants, such as consulting

25

public directories and family members. See Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785, 786-7 (Nev. 1990,

26

overruled on other grounds by NC-DSH, Inc., 218 P.3d 853, 862 (Nev. 2009); Abreu v. Gilmer,

27

985 P.2d 746, 747 (Nev. 1999); McNair v. Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Nev. 1994).

28

///

-3-

1

In Price, the Nevada Supreme Court found service by publication was not warranted,

2

stating Awhere other reasonable methods exist for locating the whereabouts of a defendant,

3

plaintiff should exercise those methods.@ 787 P.2d at 786-7. There, the plaintiff contacted the

4

defendant=s stepmother, and upon hearing that the defendant lived out of state, moved for service

5

by publication. Id. at 105. The Price court held that, Aalthough [plaintiff=s] affidavit technically

6

complies with NRCP 4(e)(1)(i), her actual efforts, as a matter of law, fall short of the due

7

diligence requirement to the extent of depriving [defendant] of his fundamental right to due

8

process.@ Id. On the other hand, in Abreu, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that plaintiff

9

exercised due diligence in attempting service and could resort to service by publication. 985

10

P.2d at 747. There, the plaintiff had made attempted to serve the defendant at his possible

11

address on three occasions and had consulted telephone company directories to locate the

12

defendant. Id.

13

Here, Plaintiff attempted to serve Plise and Aquila Management, LLC, on three occasions

14

at two addresses—one in Nevada and one in Texas. Plaintiff attempted to serve Moore on three

15

occasions at one address.

16

additional addresses. In addition, Plaintiff conducted searches in Westlaw, LexisNexis, and

17

public record to find alternate addresses for these Defendants without success. Plaintiff has not

18

specified what public records they searched, or whether they searched them in Nevada, Texas, or

19

both. Plaintiff was informed that Plise resided in a gated community but was continually denied

20

access to serve him there.

Plaintiff represents it contacted Plise’s bankruptcy attorney for

21

With respect to Plise and Aquila Management, LLC, NRS 14.090(1)(a) governs. It

22

provides that if a person resides in a place where access is not reasonably available except

23

through a gate, and the guard denies access to the residence, that person may be lawfully served

24

with any legal process by leaving a copy of the summonses and Complaint with the guard. NRS

25

14.090(1)(a). With respect to Moore, the court does not find three attempts to serve him with

26

process at one address over a three-day period qualifies as due diligence. Further, the court has

27

no information concerning the efforts made to search public records to locate alternative

28

addresses for this Defendant.

-4-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Serve (Dkt. #30) is GRANTED IN PART and

3

DENIED IN PART as follows:

4

1. Plaintiff’s request to extend the time to serve Defendants William W. Plise, Aquila

5

Management, LLC, and James L. Moore is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until

6

December 8, 2014, to serve Defendants with process.

7

2. Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendants William W. Plise and Aquila Management,

8

LLC, by publication is DENIED. Plaintiff shall employ the method authorized by

9

NRS 14.090(1)(a) to serve these Defendants.

10
11
12

3. Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendant James L. Moore by publication is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated this 6th day of October, 2014.

13
14
____________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-