Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. La Posada Condominium Property Owners Association et al
Filing
11
ORDER that 10 Motion for Order for Leave to Serve by Publication and to Enlarge Time for Service is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall deposit a copy of the summons and complaint in the post office via first class certified mail, dir ected to Defendant Sakurai's last known physical addresses. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until December 27, 2017, to complete service upon Defendant Ayaka Toshiko Sakurai. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/24/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LA POSADA CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY
)
OWNERS ASSOCIATION and AYAKA
)
TOSHIKO SAKURAI,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:17-cv-02391-JAD-GWF
ORDER
13
14
15
16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Leave to Serve by
Publication and to Enlarge Time for Service (ECF No. 10), filed on October 23, 2017.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), the state statutes in which the District Court is held are
17
followed in matters pertaining to service of summons by publication. N.R.C.P. 4(e)(1)(i) states that
18
the court may permit service by publication if, after due diligence shown, the plaintiff is unable to
19
find the defendant(s) within the state, or they are avoiding the service of summons. The plaintiff
20
must prove this to the satisfaction of the court either by affidavit or by a verified complaint. The
21
Nevada Supreme Court has held that there is no objective, formulaic standard for determining what
22
is, or is not, due diligence. Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 749 (1999). N.R.C.P. 4(e)(1)(ii) further
23
states that service by publication is valid for “ any action which relates to, or the subject of which is,
24
real or personal property.”
25
Plaintiff argues that it has shown due diligence by making several failed attempts at serving
26
Defendant Ayaka Toshiko Sakurai. First, Plaintiff attempted service at the subject property at issue
27
in this case: 1900 Desert Falls Court, Unit 206, Las Vegas, Nevada. However, Plaintiff discovered
28
that the property is vacant. See ECF No. 10, Exhibit A. Next, Plaintiff attempted service at a
1
California address that it believed belonged to Defendant Sakurai. That address is a private mailbox
2
and service cannot be effectuated there. Third, Plaintiff performed a skip trace on Defendant
3
Sakurai. The only other address revealed by that search was for another PO Box. Id. at Exhibit B.
4
Based on this information, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated due diligence in
5
attempting service on Defendant Sakurai that would warrant permitting service by publication.
6
Moreover, the subject of this litigation is real property. Accordingly,
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Leave to Serve by
8
Publication and to Enlarge Time for Service (ECF No. 10) is granted. Defendant Ayaka Toshiko
9
Sakurai may be served by Plaintiff through publication of the summons and complaint in this case at
10
least once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks in the Nevada Legal News, which is a newspaper
11
of general circulation published in Las Vegas, Nevada.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall deposit a copy of the summons and
13
complaint in the post office via first class certified mail, directed to Defendant Sakurai’s last known
14
physical addresses: 1) 1900 Desert Falls Court, 2) 2537 Pacific Coast Highway, Apt. D429 and
15
3)904 Silver Spur Road #358.
16
17
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until December 27, 2017, to
complete service upon Defendant Ayaka Toshiko Sakurai.
DATED this 24th day of October, 2017.
19
20
21
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?