United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NOS. 9, 10)
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for an extension
of time to serve Aaron M. Nanez and Nicole Verheryen
(“Defendants”) and for leave to serve them by
publication. Docket Nos. 9, 10. The motions are properly
resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For
the reasons discussed below, the motion to extend is GRANTED
in part and the motion to serve by publication is DENIED
Motion to Extend Time for Service
seeks a 90-day extension to effectuate service. Docket No.
10. Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the
complaint is extended for an appropriate period. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). While the motion establishes sufficient
cause to extend the time for effectuating service, the Court
finds insufficient cause to double the service period as
requested. Instead, the Court will extend the service by
period by 60 days.
Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication
also seeks leave to serve Defendants by publication. Service
by publication implicates a defendant's fundamental due
process rights. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15
(1950); Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785, 787 (Nev.
1990). As a result, service by publication is generally
disfavored. See, e.g., Trustees of the Nev.
Resort Assoc.-Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators v. Alumifax,
Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 106456, *2 (D. Nev. July
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within
the United States pursuant to the law of the state in which
the district court is located, or in which service is made.
See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). Pursuant to Rule 4
of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are generally
required to personally serve summons and the complaint upon
defendants. Nevada law also permits a party to obtain leave
for service by publication when the opposing party, inter
alia “cannot, after due diligence be found within
the state, or by concealment seeks to avoid the service of
summons.” Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). There are several
factors courts consider to evaluate a party's due
diligence, including the number of attempts made to serve the
defendant at his residence and other methods of locating
defendants, such as consulting public directories and family
members. See Price, 787 P.2d at 786-87; Abreu v.
Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 747 (Nev. 1999); McNair v.
Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Nev. 1994).
case, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendants at two
addresses identified through “various databases of
public information to which [its law firm] has access.”
Docket No. 9-1 at ¶ 3. In essence, Plaintiff has
attempted to locate Defendants' address only through
“databases of public information.” The Court
finds that to be insufficient diligence to justify service by
publication. Plaintiff has not explained why it believes
additional attempts to locate Defendants, such as through
conducting a skip trace, would prove unsuccessful. Plaintiff
also appears to have limited its search to Nevada addresses,
see Docket No. 9 at 7 (“there is no other
known potential residence for the Defendants in the State of
Nevada”), without any explanation as to why it is not
required to attempt to locate Defendants outside the state.
Cf. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Seven Hills Master Cmty.
Assoc., 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 144077, at *3 (D. Nev.
Oct. 18, 2016) (denying without prejudice motion for service
by publication since, inter alia, it failed to
explain whether or how the movant attempted to serve the
defendant in Lebanon).
reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS in part the motion
to extend the deadline to effectuate service. The deadline to
serve Defendants is extended by 60 days. The Court DENIES
without prejudice the motion to serve Defendants by
publication. If Plaintiff is unable to serve Defendants by
the extended deadline, it may file a renewed motion for
service by publication explaining the additional steps that
have been taken to locate and serve Defendants.
 Counsel's declaration attests to
attempted service on Ms. Verheyen on Cockatiel Drive. Docket
No. 9-1 at ¶ 4(b). The attached affidavits by the
process server do not reflect any such attempted service,
however, and instead only reflect attempted service on Pebble
Beach Road. See Docket No. 9-1 at 5-6. For purposes
of this motion, the Court assumes a service attempt was made
at Cockatiel Drive. In any ...