Wells Fargo Financial Nevada 2, Inc. v. The Eagle and the Cross LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 33 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to Serve is GRANTED. Defendant shall have until 10/19/2017 to effectuate service on Counter-Defendant Doris Hurd. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Claimant 's request to serve Counter-Defendant by publication is granted as follows: Counter-Defendant Hurd may be served by Defendant through publication of the summons and cross-claim in this case at least once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/19/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL NEVADA 2, INC., )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE EAGLE AND THE CROSS, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01775-JCM-GWF
ORDER

13
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve (ECF No.
14
33), filed on June 27, 2017.
15
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) and LR 6, extensions of time may be granted for good cause
16
shown. Further, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – which governs the time limit
17
of service – allows the court to grant an extension of time for service if the plaintiff can show good
18
cause for his failure to timely serve a defendant. Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
19
provides that the state statutes in which the District Court is held are followed in matters pertaining
20
to service of summons by publication. N.R.C.P. 4(e)(1)(i) states that the court may permit service
21
by publication if, after due diligence shown, the plaintiff is unable to find the defendant(s) within
22
the state, or they are avoiding the service of summons. The plaintiff must prove this to the
23
satisfaction of the court either by affidavit or by a verified complaint. The Nevada Supreme Court
24
has held that there is no objective, formulaic standard for determining what is, or is not, due
25
diligence. Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 749 (1999).
26
Defendant/Counter-Claimant requests an extension of time to serve Counter-Defendant
27
Doris E. Hurd and permission to serve by publication. Defendant/Counter-Claimant asserts it has
28

1

demonstrated due diligence by attempting to serve Doris Hurd at her last known addresses, 3156

2

Sonata Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89121 and 3523 Buena Vista Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89121, with no

3

success. Further, Defendant/Counter-Claimant performed searches of the county assessor’s office,

4

DMV, voter registration, and phone directory. See Affidavit of Due Diligence (ECF No. 32). The

5

Court, therefore, finds that Defendant/Counter-Claimant has provided sufficient good cause to

6

warrant a 90 day extension of time to serve and service by publication. Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve (ECF No.

8

33) is granted. Defendant shall have until October 19, 2017 to effectuate service on Counter-

9

Defendant Doris Hurd.

10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Claimant’s request to serve
Counter-Defendant by publication is granted as follows:
1.

Counter-Defendant Hurd may be served by Defendant through publication of the

13

summons and cross-claim in this case at least once a week for four (4) consecutive

14

weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

15

DATED this 19th day of July, 2017.

16
17
18

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2