Johnson v. Lawrence Nathan Associates, Inc. et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting 5 Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendant Michael D. Mazur. Plaintiff shall have until 10/19/2017 to effectuate service. Plaintiff's request to serve Defendant by publication is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
LAKISHA JOHNSON,
7
8
9
10
11
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAWRENCE NATHAN ASSOCIATES, INC.,
)
and MICHAEL D. MAZUR
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:17-cv-01069-RFB-GWF
ORDER
12
13
14
15
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Service and
Request for Order to Serve by Publication (ECF No. 5), filed on July 11, 2017.
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
Plaintiff requests an extension of time to serve Defendant Michael D. Mazur and permission
27
to serve by publication. Plaintiff asserts she has demonstrated due diligence by making five
28
separate attempts to serve Defendant at his last known office address, 2355 Red Rock Street, Suite
1
100, Las Vegas, NV 89146, with no success. Further, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant at a
2
California address thought to be under his name, but the individual living at the address was not the
3
Defendant. See ECF No. 5-5. The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff has provided sufficient
4
good cause to warrant a 90 day extension of time to serve and service by publication. Accordingly,
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve (ECF No.
6
5) is granted. Plaintiff shall have until October 19, 2017 to effectuate service on Defendant
7
Michael D. Mazur.
8
9
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendant by publication is
granted as follows:
1.
Defendant Mazur may be served through publication of the summons and cross-
11
claim in this case at least once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks in a newspaper
12
of general circulation.
13
DATED this 19th day of July, 2017.
14
15
16
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?