United States District Court, D. Nevada
WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court are plaintiff Clifford Huang's motion
for service of process (ECF No. 5) and motion to extend time
to effect service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (ECF No. 6).
Huang moves to serve defendant Ciara B. Carney by email under
either Rule 4(f) or Rule 4(e) because, he alleges,
Carney's surreptitious conduct has made it impossible to
locate her residence or serve her personally. The Court will
deny Huang's motion for service of process under Rule
4(f) because Huang has not alleged that Carney is located in
a foreign country, and it will deny the motion under Rule
4(e) because Huang has not made the requisite showing under
the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure to effect service of
process by alternative means. However, given Huang's
diligent efforts to locate and serve Carney, the Court will
grant his motion to extend the time to effect service under
alleges that he is the victim of a fraudulent scheme operated
by Carney and various Doe defendants. (ECF No. 5 at 2.)
According to Huang's complaint, Huang and Carney met
through social media in 2017, and Carney introduced herself
as “Iris Rose.” (ECF No. 1 at 4 (Compl.).) The
two communicated through Snapchat, a social media
platform. (Id.) The scheme began, Huang
alleges, with Carney's initial request to borrow $200.00.
(Id.) Carney supposedly agreed to repay the borrowed
money once her employer deposited her paycheck.
(Id.) Subsequently, Carney allegedly fabricated a
series of “false stories, ” mostly involving
financial hardship, to acquire additional money from Huang.
(Id. at 2.)
alleges that, in total, Carney extorted and defrauded him of
at least $59, 378.23. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Huang further alleges
that Carney received these funds through several channels,
including a Google Wallet account associated with the
following email addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org and
email@example.com. (Id. at 6.)
to Huang, the alleged scheme began to unravel when he
discovered that the name “Iris Rose” was an
alias. Huang alleges that he discovered this information when
he tried to make a wire transfer into an account that he
believed belonged to “Iris Rose”; the wire was
rejected because the account belonged to “Ciara B.
Carney.” (Id. at 6-7.) Huang goes on to allege
that he confronted Carney about her alias and the series of
supposed falsehoods. (Id. at 7.) In response, Carney
“admitted that she had concocted each and every
statement” to Huang. (Id.) Huang, then, filed
his complaint with this Court on May 17, 2019. (Id.
has been unable to identify Carney's current address.
Included with Huang's motion is a declaration of a
licensed process server who declared under penalty of perjury
that he performed a background check on Carney and identified
that Carney might reside at 2205 Tosca Street, #103, Las
Vegas, Nevada 89128 (the “Tosca Street address”).
(ECF No. 5, Ex. A.) Also included is an affidavit by a second
process server detailing his efforts to locate Carney. (ECF
No. 5, Ex. B.) These efforts included searching Clark
County's marriage, foreclosure, traffic, family court,
and district court records, as well as a search through the
Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Facebook, and the United
States Postmaster. (Id.) Through these efforts, the
second process server identified 3300 North Tenaya Way,
#2053, Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 (the “North Tenaya
address”) and the Tosca Street address as Carney's
possible residence. (Id.)
efforts to effect service of process on Carney at the North
Tenaya and Tosca Street addresses have been unsuccessful. The
affidavits of a third process server detail that after five
attempts to serve Carney at the North Tenaya address, the
process server learned that Carney did not reside there.
(Id.) Further, a resident of the Tosca Street
address informed the process server that Carney previously
lived at that address but had moved out four months before
the service attempt. (Id.)
asserts that Carney's extensive lies about her name,
email address, location, and career have made it unfeasible
to effect “regular service of process.” (ECF No.
5 at 3.) Therefore, Huang moves to serve Carney by email at
the email addresses associated with the Google Wallet account
that Carney allegedly used to receive money from Huang.
SERVICE OF PROCESS
Constitution does not require any particular means of service
of process. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern.
Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339
U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Instead, it requires only that service
“be reasonably calculated to provide notice and an
opportunity to respond.” Id. To that end,
service of process is governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which delineates between service of
individuals located within the United States and individuals
located in a foreign country. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(f) governs service of individuals located in a foreign
country. It provides that service on these individuals is
proper by, inter alia, any court-ordered means not
prohibited by international agreement. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3).
The Ninth Circuit has previously endorsed service of process
by email under Rule 4(f). Rio Props. Inc., 284 F.3d
is cognizant that Rule 4(f) speaks to service of individuals
located in a foreign country. However, Huang argues that the
Court has broad discretion under Rule 4(f) to authorize
service on domestic defendants who-like Carney-have allegedly
evaded service of process. He further argues that
Carney's alleged efforts to ...