DAVID A. TANNER, Esq. 1 Nevada Bar No. 8282 JEFFREY C. GUNN, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 15925 3 TANNER LAW FIRM 7895 West Sunset Road, Suite 115 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 5 Telephone (702) 987-8888 Facsimile (702) 410-8070 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 ROLANDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ, ) CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-00118-GMN-EJY an individual; ANA DANIELA ) 11 ) AMEZQUITA AVILES, an individual; ) 12 RICARDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ, ) an individual, ) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 13 ) SERVICE ) 14 Plaintiffs, ) ) 15 vs. ) ) 16 VICTOR M. CEPEDA GONZALEZ, an ) ) 17 individual; J. ROMERO MIRABAL, an ) individual, DOES I through X; and ROE ) 18 ENTITIES I through X, ) ) 19 Defendants. ) 20 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE 21 22 ROLANDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ, ANA DANIELA AMEZQUITA AVILES, 23 and RICARDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, DAVID A. TANNER, ESQ. and JEFFREY C. GUNN, ESQ. of the Tanner Law Firm, hereby 24 file this Motion to Extend Time for Service On Defendant, J. Romero Mirabal (“Defendant 25 Mirabal”). 26 … 27 28 1 1 This Motion is based upon the pleadings and papers on file in this matter and the 2 || attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3 4 Dated this 26th date of March 2025 5
7 By: DAVID A. TANNER, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8282 9 JEFFREY C. GUNN, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15925 10 TANNER LAW FIRM 7895 West Sunset Road, Suite 115 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 12 Telephone (702) 987-8888 Facsimile (702) 410-8070 13 david@tannerlawfirm.com 1 jeff@tannerlawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3 The Complaint was filed in this case on October 15, 2024. [Complaint, attached hereto 4 as Exhibit 1] Defendant Victor M. Cepeda Gonzalez was served with the Complaint and filed an 5 Answer in Nevada State Court on December 5, 2024. [Defendant Gonzalez Answer, 6 attached hereto as Exhibit 2] Defendant Gonzalez then removed the case to this Court on 7 January 17, 2025. (See, Document 1, Defendant Victor M. Cepeda Gonzalez’s 8 Petition for Removal of Action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441). 9 On March 4, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow for Alternative Service 10 On Defendant J. Romero Mirabal. (Document 11). In doing so, the Court stated that the first 11 publication my occur no later than March 18, 2025. Despite timely, diligent work, the first 12 publication did not occur until March 22, 2025, and publication in Indiana has not yet begun. 13 For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs request that this Court extend the time of service 14 by 3 weeks, to May 6, 2025. 15 II. 16 RELEVANT TIMELINE 17 On March 13, 2025, Plaintiffs sent an email to legals@reviewjournal.com requesting the 18 Summons to be served via publication for four (4) consecutive weeks. On the same day, an 19 email was received from legals@reviewjournal.com with attached proof of Summons legal 20 notices and invoice for $110.00 to be paid prior to publication. On March 17, 2025, a check for 21 $110.00 for LV Review Journal was sent in the mail and a copy was sent to 22 legals@reviewjournal.com. Thereafter, also on March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs received an email 23 from legals@reviewjournal.com stating they have moved the start date of publication to March 24 22, 2025, and that they would move the start date as necessary until the check was received. 25 [Emails to LV Review Journal attached hereto as Exhibit 3] 26 On March 13, 2025 Plaintiffs also sent email to doug.mcavoy@goshennews.com 27 requesting the Summons to be served via publication for four (4) consecutive weeks. After 28 3 1 receiving no response, Plaintiffs called Goshen News on March 17, 2025, and spoke with Angie 2 Kulczar. She stated she could help. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sent an email to 3 angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com requesting Summons to be served via publication for four (4) 4 consecutive weeks. Plaintiffs sent a follow up email on March 20, 2025, to 5 angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com regarding publication. Plaintiffs received a response on March 6 25, 2025 with an order for prepayment. On March 25, 2025, Plaintiffs sent an email to 7 angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com requesting an invoice for publication. The invoice was later 8 provided, and a copy of the check was then sent to angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com with copy 9 of check. [Emails to Goshen News attached hereto as Exhibit 4] 10 III. 11 LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 When a case is filed in Nevada State Court, but removed by one Defendant before the 13 other Defendant is served, it seems that Federal Rules would govern service on the un-served 14 Defendant. See, 28 U.S.C. §1448; see also, Whidbee v. Pierce County, 857 F.3d 1019, 1023 15 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, a plaintiff who had not yet served a defendant when a case is removed 16 to Federal Court should be allowed time to serve the un-served defendant. Id. 17 A. Service Under FRCP 4 “‘The Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process.”’ 18 SmarterSwipe, Inc. v. Navarrete, 2025 WL 274620, 2 (D. Nev. 2025) (quoting Rio Props. V. 19 Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002)). It only requires that service be 20 calculated to “‘provide notice and an opportunity to respond.’” Id. Service in a recent case has 21 been allowed by various means including e-mail, text message, direct message on a social 22 media account, mail, and voice message. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co v. Soulje, 2025 WL 23 295003, 2 (D. Nev. 2025). 24 Service is governed by FRCP 4. It holds that: “A summons must be served with a copy 25 of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served 26 within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who 27 makes service.” Id. at 4(c)(1). Further, this Rules states: 28 4 1 Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own 2 after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without 3 prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for 4 the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 5 appropriate period. Id. at (m). As such, this Court must extend the time to service if the Plaintiffs show good cause 6 of the failure. 7 B. Plaintiffs Have Shown Good Cause To Extend The Time To Serve 8 The determination of good cause is within the court’s discretion. Scrimer v. Eighth 9 Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 513, 998 P.2d 1190, 1193 – 94 (2000) (citing Lacy v. Wen- 10 Neva, Inc., 109 Nev. 341, 849 P.2d 260 (1993)). As shown above, following the Court’s 11 approval of service by publication (Document 11), Plaintiffs were diligent in getting publication 12 started. However, because of the time required to communicate and send and process payment, 13 service has not yet begun. 14 Due to the diligence of Plaintiffs good cause exists to extend the time to serve Defendant 15 Mirabal. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court extend the time of service to May 6, 16 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DAVID A. TANNER, Esq. 1 Nevada Bar No. 8282 JEFFREY C. GUNN, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 15925 3 TANNER LAW FIRM 7895 West Sunset Road, Suite 115 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 5 Telephone (702) 987-8888 Facsimile (702) 410-8070 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 ROLANDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ, ) CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-00118-GMN-EJY an individual; ANA DANIELA ) 11 ) AMEZQUITA AVILES, an individual; ) 12 RICARDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ, ) an individual, ) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 13 ) SERVICE ) 14 Plaintiffs, ) ) 15 vs. ) ) 16 VICTOR M. CEPEDA GONZALEZ, an ) ) 17 individual; J. ROMERO MIRABAL, an ) individual, DOES I through X; and ROE ) 18 ENTITIES I through X, ) ) 19 Defendants. ) 20 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE 21 22 ROLANDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ, ANA DANIELA AMEZQUITA AVILES, 23 and RICARDO GUTIERREZ ARMENDARIZ (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, DAVID A. TANNER, ESQ. and JEFFREY C. GUNN, ESQ. of the Tanner Law Firm, hereby 24 file this Motion to Extend Time for Service On Defendant, J. Romero Mirabal (“Defendant 25 Mirabal”). 26 … 27 28 1 1 This Motion is based upon the pleadings and papers on file in this matter and the 2 || attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3 4 Dated this 26th date of March 2025 5
7 By: DAVID A. TANNER, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8282 9 JEFFREY C. GUNN, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15925 10 TANNER LAW FIRM 7895 West Sunset Road, Suite 115 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 12 Telephone (702) 987-8888 Facsimile (702) 410-8070 13 david@tannerlawfirm.com 1 jeff@tannerlawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3 The Complaint was filed in this case on October 15, 2024. [Complaint, attached hereto 4 as Exhibit 1] Defendant Victor M. Cepeda Gonzalez was served with the Complaint and filed an 5 Answer in Nevada State Court on December 5, 2024. [Defendant Gonzalez Answer, 6 attached hereto as Exhibit 2] Defendant Gonzalez then removed the case to this Court on 7 January 17, 2025. (See, Document 1, Defendant Victor M. Cepeda Gonzalez’s 8 Petition for Removal of Action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441). 9 On March 4, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow for Alternative Service 10 On Defendant J. Romero Mirabal. (Document 11). In doing so, the Court stated that the first 11 publication my occur no later than March 18, 2025. Despite timely, diligent work, the first 12 publication did not occur until March 22, 2025, and publication in Indiana has not yet begun. 13 For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs request that this Court extend the time of service 14 by 3 weeks, to May 6, 2025. 15 II. 16 RELEVANT TIMELINE 17 On March 13, 2025, Plaintiffs sent an email to legals@reviewjournal.com requesting the 18 Summons to be served via publication for four (4) consecutive weeks. On the same day, an 19 email was received from legals@reviewjournal.com with attached proof of Summons legal 20 notices and invoice for $110.00 to be paid prior to publication. On March 17, 2025, a check for 21 $110.00 for LV Review Journal was sent in the mail and a copy was sent to 22 legals@reviewjournal.com. Thereafter, also on March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs received an email 23 from legals@reviewjournal.com stating they have moved the start date of publication to March 24 22, 2025, and that they would move the start date as necessary until the check was received. 25 [Emails to LV Review Journal attached hereto as Exhibit 3] 26 On March 13, 2025 Plaintiffs also sent email to doug.mcavoy@goshennews.com 27 requesting the Summons to be served via publication for four (4) consecutive weeks. After 28 3 1 receiving no response, Plaintiffs called Goshen News on March 17, 2025, and spoke with Angie 2 Kulczar. She stated she could help. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sent an email to 3 angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com requesting Summons to be served via publication for four (4) 4 consecutive weeks. Plaintiffs sent a follow up email on March 20, 2025, to 5 angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com regarding publication. Plaintiffs received a response on March 6 25, 2025 with an order for prepayment. On March 25, 2025, Plaintiffs sent an email to 7 angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com requesting an invoice for publication. The invoice was later 8 provided, and a copy of the check was then sent to angie.kulzcar@goshennews.com with copy 9 of check. [Emails to Goshen News attached hereto as Exhibit 4] 10 III. 11 LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 When a case is filed in Nevada State Court, but removed by one Defendant before the 13 other Defendant is served, it seems that Federal Rules would govern service on the un-served 14 Defendant. See, 28 U.S.C. §1448; see also, Whidbee v. Pierce County, 857 F.3d 1019, 1023 15 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, a plaintiff who had not yet served a defendant when a case is removed 16 to Federal Court should be allowed time to serve the un-served defendant. Id. 17 A. Service Under FRCP 4 “‘The Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process.”’ 18 SmarterSwipe, Inc. v. Navarrete, 2025 WL 274620, 2 (D. Nev. 2025) (quoting Rio Props. V. 19 Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002)). It only requires that service be 20 calculated to “‘provide notice and an opportunity to respond.’” Id. Service in a recent case has 21 been allowed by various means including e-mail, text message, direct message on a social 22 media account, mail, and voice message. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co v. Soulje, 2025 WL 23 295003, 2 (D. Nev. 2025). 24 Service is governed by FRCP 4. It holds that: “A summons must be served with a copy 25 of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served 26 within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who 27 makes service.” Id. at 4(c)(1). Further, this Rules states: 28 4 1 Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own 2 after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without 3 prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for 4 the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 5 appropriate period. Id. at (m). As such, this Court must extend the time to service if the Plaintiffs show good cause 6 of the failure. 7 B. Plaintiffs Have Shown Good Cause To Extend The Time To Serve 8 The determination of good cause is within the court’s discretion. Scrimer v. Eighth 9 Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 513, 998 P.2d 1190, 1193 – 94 (2000) (citing Lacy v. Wen- 10 Neva, Inc., 109 Nev. 341, 849 P.2d 260 (1993)). As shown above, following the Court’s 11 approval of service by publication (Document 11), Plaintiffs were diligent in getting publication 12 started. However, because of the time required to communicate and send and process payment, 13 service has not yet begun. 14 Due to the diligence of Plaintiffs good cause exists to extend the time to serve Defendant 15 Mirabal. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court extend the time of service to May 6, 16 2025. 17 … 18 … 19 … 20 … 21 … 22 … 23 … 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 5 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court extend the time of 4 service to May 6, 2025. 5 6 Dated this 26th date of March, 2025. ; 2 9 By: DAVID A. TANNER, Esq. 10 Nevada Bar No. 8282 11 JEFFREY C. GUNN, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15925 12 TANNER LAW FIRM 7895 West Sunset Road, Suite 115 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED; provided, however, there will re be no further extensions of time to serve Defendant 19 J. Romero Mirabal absent extraordinary unforeseen circumstances. 20 21 22 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUD 23 Date: March 27, 2025 24 25 26 27 28