Meisler v. Chrzanowski et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion : The component of Plaintiff's 50 Motion for enlargement to serve Dan Vidovich is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 23, 2015 to effect personal service upon Defendant Vidovich. The The second component of Plaintiff's 50 Motion re service by publication is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 4/10/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

MICHAEL CHARLES MEISLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
NADINE CHRZANOWSKI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)

3:12-cv-00487-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
April 10, 2015

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Modify. (Doc. # 50.) There are two components to
Plaintiff’s Motion. First, Plaintiff seeks the court to modify its order (Doc. # 43) which granted
Plaintiff a 60 day extension to and including June 23, 2015, to effect service of process as to
defendant Tebo. (Doc. # 50.) Plaintiff states he initially sought the extension only as to defendant
Tebo because he was unaware as to how many of the eight defendants had been served. However,
now that the Douglas County defendants (but not Dan Vidovich) have been served, Plaintiff seeks
to extend the time in which he may serve Mr. Vidovich to and including June 23, 2015, the same
deadline the court extended as to Ms. Tebo. (Id., at 2.)
This component of Plaintiff's motion for enlargement to serve Dan Vidovich (Doc. # 50) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 23, 2015 to effect personal service upon
Defendant Vidovich.
The second component of Plaintiff’s motion states the additional time sought to effect service
would enable Plaintiff to publish notice of the suit to effectuate service of process by publication.
The Plaintiff asks the court to “modify its order (Dkt 43) to include Defendant Dan Vidovich as a
party upon whom service of process is to be effectuated by person (sic) service or service by
publication.” (Id., at 3.)
The second component of Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE The
granting of this extension is not be construed as any endorsement by this court that Plaintiff has been
given leave to effect service on Defendant Vidovich by publication. (See Doc. # 53).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk