Bank of New York Mellon v. Gleneagles Homeowner Association, Inc.

Filing 56

ORDER granting 53 Motion for Service by Publication.; granting 54 Motion. The deadline to serve Mr. Mendez by publication is extended by 60 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 GLENEAGLES HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-00607-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 53-54) 16 Pending before the Court are SFR’s motions for an extension of time to serve Jose Luis Mendez 17 and for leave to serve him by publication. Docket Nos. 53-54. The motions are properly resolved 18 without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motions are GRANTED. 19 I. Motion to Extend Time for Service 20 Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an appropriate 21 period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The motion establishes sufficient cause to extend the time for 22 effectuating service on Mr. Mendez by 60 days. 23 II. Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication 24 SFR seeks leave to serve Mr. Mendez by publication. Service by publication implicates a 25 defendant’s fundamental due process rights. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 26 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950); Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785, 787 (Nev. 1990). As a result, service by 27 publication is generally disfavored. See, e.g., Trustees of the Nev. Resort Assoc.–Int’l Alliance of 28 1 Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators v. Alumifax, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. 2 Lexis. 106456, *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2013). 3 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service pursuant to the law of the state in which 4 the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Pursuant to 5 Rule 4 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are generally required to personally serve 6 summons and the complaint upon defendants. Nevada law also permits a party to obtain leave for 7 service by publication when the opposing party, inter alia “cannot, after due diligence be found within 8 the state, or by concealment seeks to avoid the service of summons.” Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). There are 9 several factors courts consider to evaluate a party’s due diligence, including the number of attempts 10 made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating defendants, such as 11 consulting public directories and family members. See Price, 787 P.2d at 786-87; Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 12 P.2d 746, 747 (Nev. 1999); McNair v. Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Nev. 1994). 13 In this case, SFR has attempted to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Mendez through, inter alia, 14 public records searches, local and state directories, a national search engine, the Postal Service, and 15 motor vehicle records. See Docket No. 53-1. SFR also attempted to reach Mr. Mendez by telephone. 16 See id. SFR has also attempted to serve Mr. Mendez at two different residential addresses. See id. The 17 Court finds these efforts sufficient to establish diligence, and permits service by publication. 18 III. Conclusion 19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions to extend the deadline to effectuate service and 20 for service by publication. The deadline to serve Mr. Mendez by publication is extended by 60 days. 21 SFR shall comply with the requirements of Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall: 22 (a) 23 24 Serve Mr. Mendez by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the State of Nevada on a weekly basis for a period of four weeks. (b) After publication is complete, SFR shall file an Affidavit of Publication. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: September 29, 2016 27 28 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?