The Law Offices of Chad M. Golightly v. Morales et al

Filing 35

ORDER that Golightly's 30 Motion for Leave to Serve Morales via Publication and 33 Motion for Additional Time to Perfect Service are Granted. Golightly and Unite Here have until 2/3/2017 to perfect service. Golightly and Unite Here the n have until 2/17/2017 to file proof of completed service with the court. Unite Here's 32 Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default is Denied without prejudice. Unite Here has until 2/3/2017 to perfect service under FRCP 4 on cross-defendants (see Order for list of names). Unite Here then has until 2/17/2017 to file proof of completed service with the court. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/5/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

The Law Offices of Chad M. Golightly, Ltd.,

5

Plaintiff

6

v.

7

Oneydy Morales, et al.,

8

Defendants

9

2:15-cv-01589-JAD-PAL
Order Discharging Show-Cause
Obligation; Granting Motion to Serve
Morales by Publication and Extension of
Time to Perfect Service; and Denying
Motion for the Entry of Clerk’s Default
[ECF Nos. 30, 32, 33]

And all related matters

10
11

The Law Offices of Chad M. Golightly, Ltd. is the plaintiff in this removed interpleader

12

action. In response to the Clerk of Court’s FRCP 4(m) dismissal notice,1 Golightly argues that

13

good cause exists for its failure to yet serve defendant Oneydy Morales with process, and seeks

14

leave to serve her by publication and additional time in which to perfect service.2

15

Defendant/cross-claimant Unite Here Health seeks the entry of a clerk’s default against several of

16

the persons named in its cross-complaint3 and joins Golightly’s request to serve Morales by

17

publication and for more time to do so.4

18

I find that Golightly has satisfied its obligation to show good cause why Morales was not

19

timely served with process. It has also established that, after due diligence, Morales either cannot

20

be located within this state or is evading service. Thus, I discharge Golightly’s obligations under

21

the Rule 4(m) notice, I grant its request for leave to serve Morales by publication, I instruct Unite

22

Here to do the same, and I enlarge and extend the time for them to serve Morales by 60 days.

23
24
25

1

26

2

27
28

ECF No. 29.

ECF Nos. 30, 33. The Golightly firm styled its response to the Clerk of Court’s notice of intent
to dismiss under FRCP 4(m) as an objection. See ECF No. 30.
3

ECF No. 32.

4

ECF No. 34.

1

Unite Here served the cross-defendants by U.S. Mail under FRCP 5, but I find that it was

2

required to serve them under FRCP 4. Thus, the cross-defendants were not properly served with

3

Unite Here’s cross-complaint. I therefore deny without prejudice Unite Here’s motion for the

4

entry of a clerk’s default against the cross-defendants, and I enlarge and extend the time for it to

5

serve them by 60 days.

6

Background

7

Oneydy Morales was injured in a car accident and retained The Law Offices of Chad M.

8

Golightly, Ltd. to represent her in the resulting lawsuit.5 The litigation eventually settled for

9

$15,000; Golightly understood that numerous individuals and entities might be entitled to the

10

settlement proceeds, but it was unsure how to distribute those funds.6 So it filed an interpleader

11

action in Nevada state court naming the potential claimants as defendants.7 Golightly then served

12

all of the defendants with process, except for Morales.8

13

Defendant Unite Here Health then removed the interpleader action to this court on the

14

basis of federal-question jurisdiction.9 Unite Here next answered Golightly’s amended

15

interpleader complaint, counterclaimed against that firm, and filed cross-claims against Unite

16

Here’s co-defendants.10 Unite Here filed a certificate purporting to have served its pleading on

17

all of the defendants, except Morales, via U.S. mail under FRCP 5.11

18
19

Because no party had yet perfected service on Morales, Golightly and Unite Here
stipulated to extend the time to serve her by 90 days, which was granted by Magistrate Judge

20
21

5

ECF No. 1 at 9, 11.

22

6

Id. at 11–12.

7

Id. at 8–13.

8

ECF No. 20.

9

ECF No. 1.

23
24
25
26
27

10

ECF No. 7.

28

11

ECF No. 8.
2

1

Leen.12 The parties then stipulated to another 60 days in which to serve Morales,13 but Judge

2

Leen denied that request as moot14 after Unite Here filed proof that it had served Morales at her

3

last known address—4800 Elm Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110—through her mother and co-

4

occupant, Lilly Santiago.15 Golightly was to effectuate service of the amended interpleader

5

complaint on Morales at that address. But when the firm’s process server attempted to do so, he

6

was informed by the occupant, who identified herself as Adelina DeSantiago, that she had rented

7

the home for many years and did not know Morales.16

8

One month later, the Clerk of Court entered notice that it intended to dismiss Golightly’s

9

claims against Morales without prejudice unless the firm filed proof that service had been timely

10

made or showed good cause why that had not occurred.17 The motions and objection that are the

11

subject of this order followed.

12
13

Discussion
A.

14

Golightly has satisfied its show-cause obligations; that firm and Unite Here may
serve Morales by publication, and the time to perfect that service is enlarged and
extended by 60 days.

15

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that individuals located in the

16

U.S. can be served by following the process laws of the state where the district court is located or

17

where service is to be made.18 Nevada law authorizes process to be served by publication when it

18
19
20
21

12

ECF No. 22.

22

13

ECF No. 23.

14

ECF No. 27.

15

ECF No. 25.

16

ECF No. 28-1 at 2–3.

27

17

ECF No. 29.

28

18

FED. R. CIV. PROC. 4(e)(1).

23
24
25
26

3

1

appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that the person to be served “cannot, after due

2

diligence, be found within the state. . . .”19

3

It appears from their process servers’ affidavits that Golightly and Unite Here have had

4

inconsistent results serving Morales with process in this action. Unite Here was able to serve

5

Morales through a woman claiming to be her mother and co-occupant at Morales’s last known

6

address: 4800 Elm Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110.20 But when Golightly attempted to serve

7

Morales at that same address, a woman bearing a similar description and name to the woman that

8

had previously claimed to be Morales’s mother stated that she had rented the home for years and

9

did not know the defendant.21 Golightly’s process server then consulted with the DMV and

10

numerous other databases looking for an updated address for Morales to no avail.22

11

It is unclear whether Golightly’s failure where Unite Here found success is the product of

12

mistake by the current occupant of Morales’s last known address or gamesmanship by or for

13

Morales. But in light of this evidence, I am satisfied that Golightly has been unable to locate

14

Morales in this state despite its diligent efforts to do so. Additionally, I conclude that Golightly

15

has shown good cause why it has not yet served Morales. Because she is a necessary and proper

16

party to this interpleader action, I grant Golightly’s request for leave to serve Morales by

17

publication. I also instruct Unite Here to serve Morales by publication so that it can assuage any

18

doubt about the validity of service of its cross-complaint on her. Further, because the time to

19

serve Morales has expired, I enlarge that time and give the parties until February 3, 2017, to

20

perfect service.

21
22
23
24
19

NEV. R. CIV. PROC. 4(e)(1)(i), (ii).

20

ECF No. 25.

27

21

ECF No. 28-1 at 3.

28

22

Id.

25
26

4

1
2

B.

Unite Here is not entitled to default against any of the cross-defendants, but the
time to perfect service on them is enlarged and extended by 60 days.

3

“[W]hen a party’s failure to plead or otherwise defend” is shown by affidavit or

4

otherwise, FRCP 55 directs the clerk of court to “enter the party’s default.”23 Unite Here argues

5

that default should be entered against Auxiliary of Riverside Community Hospital, American

6

Medical Response of Southern California, Dr. Mark Glyman, Dr. Eric Swanson, and Southern

7

Hills Medical Center, LLC because they have failed to respond to Unite Here’s cross-complaint.

8

Unite Here served the cross-defendants with a copy of its cross-complaint via U.S. mail

9

under FRCP 5.24 It argues that service was proper because Rule 5 applies to “a pleading filed

10

after the original complaint”25 and provides that “[n]o service is required on a party who is in

11

default for failing to appear.”26 However, Unite Here fails to notice that the rule continues: “But

12

a pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against such party must be served on that party

13

under Rule 4.”27

14

Unite Here sues Auxiliary of Riverside Community Hospital, American Medical

15

Response of Southern California, Dr. Mark Glyman, Dr. Eric Swanson, and Southern Hills

16

Medical Center, LLC for a declaration and enforcement of rights that it claims are granted to it by

17

a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and for constructive trust

18

or an equitable lien.28 Those claims were not asserted in the “original complaint” that the

19

Golightly firm filed. This is because the Golightly firm’s complaint is one for interpleader.

20

“‘Rooted in equity, interpleader is a handy tool to protect a stakeholder from multiple liability

21
22

23

FED. R. CIV. PROC. 55(a).

24

ECF No. 8.

25

FED. R. CIV. PROC. 5(a)(1)(B).

26

Id. at 5(a)(2).

27

27

Id.

28

28

ECF No. 7 at 8–9.

23
24
25
26

5

1

and the vexation of defending multiple claims to the same fund.’”29 “An interpleader action

2

usually encompasses two distinct procedurally [sic] stages. First, the court determines the

3

propriety of interpleading the adverse claimants and relieving the stakeholder from liability. The

4

second stage involves an adjudication of the adverse claims of the defendant claimants.”30

5

Golightly’s amended interpleader complaint pertains to the first stage, while Unite Here’s

6

cross-complaint concerns the second stage. Because Unite Here’s cross-complaint contains new

7

claims that were not alleged in Golightly’s amended interpleader complaint, Unite Here was

8

required to serve the cross-defendants under FRCP 4.31 Thus, I deny Unite Here’s motion for the

9

entry of clerk’s default against cross-defendants Auxiliary of Riverside Community Hospital,

10

American Medical Response of Southern California, Dr. Mark Glyman, Dr. Eric Swanson, and

11

Southern Hills Medical Center, LLC. And because the time to serve them has expired, I enlarge

12

that time and give Unite Here until January 31, 2017, to perfect service on these cross-

13

defendants.

14

Conclusion

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Golightly’s requests for leave to serve

16

Morales via publication and for additional time to perfect service [ECF Nos. 30, 33] are

17

GRANTED. Golightly and Unite Here must each serve Morales by publication in the Las Vegas

18

Review-Journal at least once a week for a period of four weeks. Golightly and Unite Here have

19

until February 3, 2017, to perfect that service. Golightly and Unite Here then have until

20

February 17, 2017, to file proof of completed service with the court.

21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Unite Here’s motion for entry of a clerk’s default
[ECF No. 32] is DENIED without prejudice. Unite Here has until February 3, 2017, to

23
24

29

First Interstate Bank of Or., N.A. v. U.S., 891 F. Supp. 543, 545–46 (D. Or. 1995) (quoting
Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C., 985 F.2d 677, 697 (2d Cir. 1993)).

25
30

26
27
28

Id. at 546 (citing 3A James WM. Moore & Jo D. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 22.14[1]
and [2] (2d ed. 1994); Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th
Cir.1992)).
31

See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 5(a)(2).
6

1

perfect service under FRCP 4 on cross-defendants Auxiliary of Riverside Community Hospital,

2

American Medical Response of Southern California, Dr. Mark Glyman, Dr. Eric Swanson, and

3

Southern Hills Medical Center, LLC. Unite Here then has until February 17, 2017, to file proof

4

of completed service with the court.

5

DATED: December 5, 2016.

6

_______________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7