Bank of America, N.A. v. Skyridge Homeowners Association et al

Filing 25

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 22 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Liqun Holdings Limited. the deadline to effectuate service on Defendant is extended by 60 days. The requests to serve Defendant by publication or through the Secretary of State are denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/14/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
14

SKYRIDGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

15

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00436-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 22)

16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to serve Defendant Liqun
17
Holdings Limited (“Defendant”), and for leave to serve it by publication or through the Secretary of
18
State. Docket No. 22. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule
19
78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
20
I.

Motion to Extend Time for Service

21
Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an appropriate
22
period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The motion establishes sufficient cause to extend the time for
23
effectuating service on Defendant for 60 days.
24
II.

Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication

25
Plaintiff seeks leave to serve Defendant by publication. Service by publication implicates a
26
defendant’s fundamental due process rights. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
27
339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950); Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785, 787 (Nev. 1990). As a result, service by
28

1

publication is generally disfavored. See, e.g., Trustees of the Nev. Resort Assoc.–Int’l Alliance of

2

Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators v. Alumifax, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.

3

Lexis. 106456, *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2013).

4

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service pursuant to the law of the state in which

5

the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Pursuant to

6

Rule 4 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are generally required to personally serve

7

summons and the complaint upon defendants. Nevada law also permits a party to obtain leave for

8

service by publication when the opposing party, inter alia “cannot, after due diligence be found within

9

the state, or by concealment seeks to avoid the service of summons.” Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). There are

10

several factors courts consider to evaluate a party’s due diligence, including the number of attempts

11

made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating defendants, such as

12

consulting public directories and family members. See Price, 787 P.2d at 786-87; Abreu v. Gilmer, 985

13

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

14

Here, Plaintiff’s efforts to effectuate service consist of (1) attempting to personally serve the

15

Defendant’s president (Zhiqun Huang) at two locations identified on the Secretary of State website and

16

(2) attempting to serve Defendant through its previous attorney. See, e.g., Docket No. 22-2. Such

17

efforts are not sufficient for the Court to permit Plaintiff to bypass the traditional service requirements.

18

For example, Plaintiff fails to explain whether it has conducted any searches regarding the location for

19

Mr. Huang apart from reviewing the Secretary of State website. Nor has Plaintiff explained whether it

20

has searched for the current location of Defendant’s other officers, Zhihong Mo and Geng Zhang. Cf.

21

Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) (Nevada corporate entities may generally be served through any of their

22

officers).1 Given that it appears several avenues to effectuate service remain unexplored, the Court finds

23

the request to serve Defendant by publication to be premature.

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the information contained on the Secretary of State website. See,
e.g., Hackett v. OneWest Bank FSB, 2012 WL 6016740, *3 n.3 (D. Nev. Dec. 3, 2012) (taking judicial notice
of information on Nevada Secretary of State business entity search website).
2

1

III.

Motion for Leave to Serve Through the Secretary of State

2

Plaintiff also requests leave to serve Defendant through the Secretary of State. Plaintiff’s single

3

paragraph devoted to seeking this relief does not meaningfully develop the issue. See Docket No. 22

4

at 5. Therefore, it will be denied. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3

5

(D. Nev. 2013).2

6

IV.

Conclusion

7

For the reasons discussed above, the pending motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

8

More particularly, the deadline to effectuate service on Defendant is extended by 60 days. The requests

9

to serve Defendant by publication or through the Secretary of State are denied without prejudice.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: June 14, 2016

12
13

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Moreover, service through the Secretary of State is permitted when service on a corporate entity
cannot be completed. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). The pending motion has not made a sufficient showing
on that front for the reasons discussed above.
3