Henderson v. Hughes et al

Filing 90

ORDER Denying Defendants' 55 , 58 , 62 , and 64 Motions to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 02/01/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) THOMAS ROBERT HUGHES, et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) ELMA HENDERSON, 10 Case No. 2:16-cv-01837-JAD-CWH ORDER Presently before the Court are Defendants Odin Statutory Trust (OST) and Northstar Global 11 BT’s (Northstar) motions to quash (ECF Nos. 55 and 58), filed on October 28, 2016. Plaintiff filed a 12 response (ECF No. 59) on November 1, 2016. Defendants did not file a reply. 13 Also before the Court are Defendants Bob Creek Trust (BCT) and Colindo Trust’s (Colindo) 14 motions to quash (ECF Nos. 62 and 64), filed on November 4, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF 15 No. 72) on November 11, 2016. Defendants filed replies (ECF Nos. 78 and 79) on November 23, 16 2016. 17 In each motion, Defendants allege service was invalid for failure to properly name them in 18 the caption of the summons and complaint. In response, Plaintiff argues that it validly served 19 Defendants through service on Thomas Robert Hughes (trustee of OST and Northstar) and Frank 20 Finnerty (trustee of BCT and Colindo) in their representative capacities. 21 Defendants do not argue that Hughes and Finnerty were not personally served, and they 22 acknowledge that Hughes and Finnerty are trustees of the respective named trusts. Both parties 23 appear to agree that Nevada law for service of process controls for these Defendants. As such, for 24 this case, a claim “may be asserted against [a] trust by proceeding against the trustee in the capacity 25 of representative, whether or not the trustee is personally liable on the claim.” NRS 163.120(1). 26 Therefore, it is not relevant whether any claims have been asserted against Hughes or Finnerty 27 personally. Further, the effectiveness of service does not depend on whether Plaintiff’s claims are 28 1 1 against the named trusts, or rather Finnerty and Hughes in their representative capacities of the trusts. 2 Plaintiff’s service of Defendants was therefore valid. 3 4 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to quash (ECF Nos. 55, 58, 62, and 64) are DENIED. DATED: February 1, 2017. 6 7 _________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?