Cave v. Clark County's Commission's Board Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Quash Service of Process. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
CHRIS HAROLD CAVE,
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY’S COMMISSION’S BOARD )
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00962-JAD-CWH
ORDER

13
14
15

Presently before the court is Defendant Clark County’s Motion to Quash Service of Process
(ECF No. 8), filed on May 10, 2017. Plaintiff Chris Harold Cave did not respond to the motion.

16

Defendant Clark County requests that the court quash service of process, arguing that

17

Plaintiff’s mailing of an unspecified document to a department of the county government does not

18

constitute proper service of process under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

19

did not respond to the motion, but given the unusual address1 stated on the motion’s certificate of

20

service, it was unclear to the court whether Plaintiff received service of the motion. The court

21

therefore ordered Defendant Clark County to serve a copy of its motion on Plaintiff at the address

22

listed in the court’s docket, which is 919 Linn Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89110. (Order (ECF No. 9).)

23

Defendant Clark County filed an additional proof of service indicating that the motion was mailed

24

to Plaintiff at the address on the docket sheet on June 13, 2017. Twenty-three days have passed

25

since the motion was served on Plaintiff and he has not filed a response. See LR 7-2(b) (stating

26
27
28

1

The certificate of service states that the motion was mailed to “U.S. ex rel., Chris-Harold, c/o
919 Linn Lance, near Non-resident, Las Vegas, Nevada State Republic, De jure Continental North
America, Non Domestic, Not in a Territory District, Nor-Federal Zone, “ZIP” code exempt per: U.S.P.S.
Dom Mail Man 122.32.” (Mot. to Quash (ECF No. 8) at 4.)

1

that the deadline for filing responses to motions is 14 days after service of the motion.) The court

2

therefore will grant the motion on the grounds that it is unopposed. See LR 7-2(d) (stating that the

3

“failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes

4

a consent to the granting of the motion”).

5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Clark County’s Motion to Quash Service of
Process (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.

7
8

DATED: July 6, 2017

9
10

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2