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)

Download PDF
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

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?