JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 13

ORDER Granting in part Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Extend Deadline to Effectuate Service. The deadline to serve Defendants is extended by 60 days. Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Service by Publication is Denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00329-JCM-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 9, 10) 16 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to serve Aaron M. 17 Nanez and Nicole Verheryen (“Defendants”) and for leave to serve them by publication. Docket Nos. 18 9, 10. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 19 discussed below, the motion to extend is GRANTED in part and the motion to serve by publication 20 is DENIED without prejudice. 21 I. Motion to Extend Time for Service 22 Plaintiff seeks a 90-day extension to effectuate service. Docket No. 10. Where good cause is 23 shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an appropriate period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 4(m). While the motion establishes sufficient cause to extend the time for effectuating service, the Court 25 finds insufficient cause to double the service period as requested. Instead, the Court will extend the 26 service by period by 60 days. 27 28 1 II. Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication 2 Plaintiff also seeks leave to serve Defendants by publication. Service by publication implicates 3 a defendant’s fundamental due process rights. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 4 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950); Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785, 787 (Nev. 1990). As a result, service by 5 publication is generally disfavored. See, e.g., Trustees of the Nev. Resort Assoc.–Int’l Alliance of 6 Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators v. Alumifax, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. 7 Lexis. 106456, *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2013). 8 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within the United States pursuant to 9 the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are generally 11 required to personally serve summons and the complaint upon defendants. Nevada law also permits a 12 party to obtain leave for service by publication when the opposing party, inter alia “cannot, after due 13 diligence be found within the state, or by concealment seeks to avoid the service of summons.” Nev. 14 R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). There are several factors courts consider to evaluate a party’s due diligence, including 15 the number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating 16 defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. See Price, 787 P.2d at 786-87; 17 Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 747 (Nev. 1999); McNair v. Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Nev. 1994). 18 In this case, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendants at two addresses identified through “various 19 databases of public information to which [its law firm] has access.” Docket No. 9-1 at ¶ 3.1 In essence, 20 Plaintiff has attempted to locate Defendants’ address only through “databases of public information.” 21 The Court finds that to be insufficient diligence to justify service by publication. Plaintiff has not 22 explained why it believes additional attempts to locate Defendants, such as through conducting a skip 23 trace, would prove unsuccessful. Plaintiff also appears to have limited its search to Nevada addresses, 24 25 1 26 27 28 Counsel’s declaration attests to attempted service on Ms. Verheyen on Cockatiel Drive. Docket No. 9-1 at ¶ 4(b). The attached affidavits by the process server do not reflect any such attempted service, however, and instead only reflect attempted service on Pebble Beach Road. See Docket No. 9-1 at 5-6. For purposes of this motion, the Court assumes a service attempt was made at Cockatiel Drive. In any renewed motion, however, counsel shall submit appropriate paperwork for each service attempt. 2 1 see Docket No. 9 at 7 (“there is no other known potential residence for the Defendants in the State of 2 Nevada”), without any explanation as to why it is not required to attempt to locate Defendants outside 3 the state. Cf. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Seven Hills Master Cmty. Assoc., 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 144077, 4 at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) (denying without prejudice motion for service by publication since, inter 5 alia, it failed to explain whether or how the movant attempted to serve the defendant in Lebanon). 6 III. Conclusion 7 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to extend the deadline 8 to effectuate service. The deadline to serve Defendants is extended by 60 days. The Court DENIES 9 without prejudice the motion to serve Defendants by publication. If Plaintiff is unable to serve 10 Defendants by the extended deadline, it may file a renewed motion for service by publication explaining 11 the additional steps that have been taken to locate and serve Defendants. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: May 10, 2017 14 15 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?