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)

Download PDF
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?