United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 71)
J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Vegas Property's motion to
serve Frink Family Living Trust by publication. Docket No.
71. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing.
See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed
below, the motion is DENIED.
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, Vegas Property attempted to serve Frink Family Living
Trust at one address on one occasion. Docket No. 71 at 8.
This showing is woefully deficient to allow service by
publication. As an initial matter, the supervisor of
the business at that address appears to know “Willie
Frink.” Id. No indication has been made
whether any effort was made to confirm whether “Willie
Frink” is the trustee or to obtain further contact
information from the company supervisor so that service could
be completed. See Id. Moreover, the additional
efforts to locate Frink Family Living Trust are also lacking.
In particular, the affidavit in several instances simply
states that various matches were found in public records,
without explaining what follow-up efforts were made or why
the results obtained were insufficient to locate Frink Family
Living Trust or allow follow-up efforts. See, e.g.,
Docket No. 71 at 11 (“I conducted a search through the
Clark County Assessors by last name and found 7 various
recordings”). The Court fails to discern how finding
potential matches shows that service by publication is
appropriate. Moreover, it appears that the affiant did not
have the potential first name of the trustee, which
potentially appears to be “Willie” from other
aspects of the record. See Id. (“The
information provided to me was the Defendant's last name.
No first names were given”); but see Id. at 8
(upon attempting service, supervisor of business mentioned
“Willie Frink”). In short, Vegas Property has not
shown the diligence required to order service by
motion to serve by publication will be
DENIED without prejudice.
 The motion and supporting papers are
at times difficult to follow, and appear to have been
cut-and-pasted from papers filed in other cases without
appropriately modifying them. For example, the motion states
that “FRINK does not reside at the address associated
with it in Nevada, 7617 Boca Raton Drive.” Docket No.
71 at 3. The motion then references the “Affidavit of
Attempts at 3123 Alder Grove Court.” Id.
(emphasis in original). The actual address at which service
was attempted was neither of those, and was instead 7121 W.
Craig Road. Id. at 8.
 Although not entirely clear since the
party to be served is a trust, the court assumes the
“Defendant's last name” refers to
 Vegas Property incorrectly states that
the deadline to complete service is April 25, 2018, based on
the counterclaim's filing date of December 26, 2017.
Docket No. 71 at 3. That is wrong. Rule 4(m) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure was amended several years ago to
reduce the presumptive time for service from 120 days to 90
days. See Advisory Committee Notes, Fed.R.Civ.P. 4
(2015 amendment). To the extent Vegas Property ...