Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC

D. Nevada

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC

DecidedJuly 24, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00727

StatusUnknown

This text of Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC (Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 || TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ. MICHAEL D. RAWLINS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15993 Nevada Bar No. 5467 2 || DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C. 3271 East Warm Springs Road 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 3 || Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (702) 832-1670 Telephone: (801) 415-3000 Designated only for personal service 4 || Facsimile: (801) 415-3500 iS: Jere □ t under Nev. SCR 42.1 rey.rothell@dentons.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for 9 || Broadcast Music, LLC; WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.; Case No.: 2:25-cv-727-JCM-DJA 10 || UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF 11 || ROSE MUSIC; HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and ORDER RE: HIFROST PUBLISHING, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND 12 TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS Plaintiffs, 13 (First Request) vs. 14 PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a 15 || MARIPOSA COCINA & COCKTAILS; TONY SAROYA, an individual; YOGENDRA 16 |} SOLANKI, an individual; RAJA MITTAL, an individual, and SURJIT HEERA, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, 20 || Inc., as agent for Broadcast Music, LLC, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp., Unichappel Music 21 || Inc., Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a Sony/ATV Acuff Rose Music, Hip City Music Inc., and Hifrost 22 || Publishing (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully move this Court for a 45-day extension of time to serve 23 || Defendants Tony Saroya, Raja Mittal, and Surjit Heera (the “Unserved Defendants”). The current 24 || deadline for service is July 24, 2025, and Plaintiffs request an extension of time until September 25 || 7, 2025. This Motion is made before the expiration of the specified period, and there is good cause 26 || to extend the time as requested. 27 -|- Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process

1 1.0 Factual Background 2 This is a copyright infringement action against a restaurant and its managing members. 3 See Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 10-23. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on April 25, 2025, and tendered 4 the summons for service of process shortly thereafter. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Rothell Decl., at ¶ 5 4. Despite repeated attempts, no service was ultimately accomplished based upon those 6 initial attempts. See id. at ¶ 6; Exh. 1, Affidavits of Diligent Attempts. Having been unable to 7 serve the Defendants, Plaintiffs contacted an attorney who was then representing Defendant Pure 8 Mexican Grill, LLC in an unrelated, active state court matter. See id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Although that 9 attorney initially responded stating that she had inquired with her client about this matter, 10 she did not respond to any further communications. See id. at ¶¶ 9-10; Exh. 2, Email from Chata 11 N. Holt to Trey A. Rothell dated May 19, 2025. Plaintiffs then transmitted requests for waiver of 12 service of summons to the Defendants on May 20, 2025, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). See 13 id. at ¶ 11. No responses to those requests were ultimately received. See id. 14 On July 15, 2025, Plaintiffs reinitiated their attempts to serve the Defendants. See Rothell 15 Decl. at ¶ 12. On July 18, 2025, Plaintiffs were ultimately able to serve one individual Defendant, 16 Yogendra Solanki, and through that Defendant also served Pure Mexican Grill, LLC. 17 See Affidavits of Service, ECF Nos. 6 & 7. Plaintiffs have so far been unable to serve the 18 remaining Defendants, Tony Saroya, Raja Mittal, and Surjit Heera. See Rothell Decl. at ¶ 14. 19 2.0 Argument 20 Plaintiffs have diligently attempted service through various measures but have been 21 unable to do so within the 90 days allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). There is good cause to 22 extend the time for service, and Plaintiffs request a 45-day extension of the deadline. 23 A plaintiff is granted 90 days to serve a defendant with process, but a court “must extend 24 the time for service for an appropriate period” where the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure 25 to effect such service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In determining whether a plaintiff has established 26 good cause, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the party to be served received 27 actual notice of the lawsuit; (2) the degree of prejudice the defendant would suffer if an 1 granted, and (3) whether the plaintiff would suffer severe prejudice if its complaint were 2 dismissed. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Boudette v. Barnette, 923 3 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). Even in the absence of good cause, courts have “broad discretion” 4 to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 5 2007). 6 There is good cause to grant the requested extension. Plaintiffs have diligently pursued 7 service of process through multiple channels, including employing two sets of process servers, 8 contacting an attorney for the Defendants’ business, and by mailing requests for waivers of 9 service to each of the Defendants. Additional time is warranted to continue service attempts or 10 otherwise request leave of this Court to serve the Unserved Defendants via alternative means. 11 Additionally, the specific factors discussed in Sheehan support a finding of good cause. 12 First, the Unserved Defendants have likely received actual notice of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs 13 mailed copies of the complaint along with requests for waiver of service of summons to the 14 Defendants,1 and they transmitted a copy of the complaint to an attorney serving as counsel to 15 the Defendant restaurant in another matter who acknowledged receipt and indicated that she 16 had informed her client. See Rothell Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9, 11. Taken together, the Unserved 17 Defendants are highly likely to have received actual notice of the lawsuit. 18 Second, the Unserved Defendants will suffer no prejudice if a brief 45-day extension is 19 granted. Despite having “a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons,” Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 4(d)(1), and failing to waive service, Unserved Defendants have chosen to not cooperate 21 with these proceedings. Indeed, even before filing suit, Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants “over 22 fifty times, by phone, mail, and email,” to educate them about their obligations under copyright 23 law and therefore avoid this lawsuit altogether, but the Defendants did not respond. See Compl. 24 at ¶ 22. A brief extension of 45 days will not cause the Unserved Defendants any prejudice. 25 26 1 The Defendants’ addresses were taken from the Nevada Secretary of State’s registration for Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, which identified each of the other Defendants as managing members 27 of the limited liability company. See Rothell Decl. at ¶ 5. ] Third, Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if no extension is granted and this case is dismissed 2 || without prejudice. Although the statute of limitations has not yet been reached, Plaintiffs would 3 ||incur attorneys’ fees related to refiling the lawsuit, costs associated with reinstating service, and 4 || other harm related to the delays associated with obtaining relief on its claims. Accordingly, there 5 good cause to extend the time for Plaintiffs to accomplish service. And, even if the Court 6 || were to find that good cause has not been shown, an extension is still warranted under Rule 7 || 4(m)’s discretionary authority.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 || TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ. MICHAEL D. RAWLINS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15993 Nevada Bar No. 5467 2 || DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C. 3271 East Warm Springs Road 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 3 || Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (702) 832-1670 Telephone: (801) 415-3000 Designated only for personal service 4 || Facsimile: (801) 415-3500 iS: Jere □ t under Nev. SCR 42.1 rey.rothell@dentons.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for 9 || Broadcast Music, LLC; WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.; Case No.: 2:25-cv-727-JCM-DJA 10 || UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF 11 || ROSE MUSIC; HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and ORDER RE: HIFROST PUBLISHING, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND 12 TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS Plaintiffs, 13 (First Request) vs. 14 PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a 15 || MARIPOSA COCINA & COCKTAILS; TONY SAROYA, an individual; YOGENDRA 16 |} SOLANKI, an individual; RAJA MITTAL, an individual, and SURJIT HEERA, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, 20 || Inc., as agent for Broadcast Music, LLC, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp., Unichappel Music 21 || Inc., Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a Sony/ATV Acuff Rose Music, Hip City Music Inc., and Hifrost 22 || Publishing (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully move this Court for a 45-day extension of time to serve 23 || Defendants Tony Saroya, Raja Mittal, and Surjit Heera (the “Unserved Defendants”). The current 24 || deadline for service is July 24, 2025, and Plaintiffs request an extension of time until September 25 || 7, 2025. This Motion is made before the expiration of the specified period, and there is good cause 26 || to extend the time as requested. 27 -|- Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process

1 1.0 Factual Background 2 This is a copyright infringement action against a restaurant and its managing members. 3 See Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 10-23. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on April 25, 2025, and tendered 4 the summons for service of process shortly thereafter. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Rothell Decl., at ¶ 5 4. Despite repeated attempts, no service was ultimately accomplished based upon those 6 initial attempts. See id. at ¶ 6; Exh. 1, Affidavits of Diligent Attempts. Having been unable to 7 serve the Defendants, Plaintiffs contacted an attorney who was then representing Defendant Pure 8 Mexican Grill, LLC in an unrelated, active state court matter. See id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Although that 9 attorney initially responded stating that she had inquired with her client about this matter, 10 she did not respond to any further communications. See id. at ¶¶ 9-10; Exh. 2, Email from Chata 11 N. Holt to Trey A. Rothell dated May 19, 2025. Plaintiffs then transmitted requests for waiver of 12 service of summons to the Defendants on May 20, 2025, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). See 13 id. at ¶ 11. No responses to those requests were ultimately received. See id. 14 On July 15, 2025, Plaintiffs reinitiated their attempts to serve the Defendants. See Rothell 15 Decl. at ¶ 12. On July 18, 2025, Plaintiffs were ultimately able to serve one individual Defendant, 16 Yogendra Solanki, and through that Defendant also served Pure Mexican Grill, LLC. 17 See Affidavits of Service, ECF Nos. 6 & 7. Plaintiffs have so far been unable to serve the 18 remaining Defendants, Tony Saroya, Raja Mittal, and Surjit Heera. See Rothell Decl. at ¶ 14. 19 2.0 Argument 20 Plaintiffs have diligently attempted service through various measures but have been 21 unable to do so within the 90 days allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). There is good cause to 22 extend the time for service, and Plaintiffs request a 45-day extension of the deadline. 23 A plaintiff is granted 90 days to serve a defendant with process, but a court “must extend 24 the time for service for an appropriate period” where the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure 25 to effect such service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In determining whether a plaintiff has established 26 good cause, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the party to be served received 27 actual notice of the lawsuit; (2) the degree of prejudice the defendant would suffer if an 1 granted, and (3) whether the plaintiff would suffer severe prejudice if its complaint were 2 dismissed. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Boudette v. Barnette, 923 3 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). Even in the absence of good cause, courts have “broad discretion” 4 to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 5 2007). 6 There is good cause to grant the requested extension. Plaintiffs have diligently pursued 7 service of process through multiple channels, including employing two sets of process servers, 8 contacting an attorney for the Defendants’ business, and by mailing requests for waivers of 9 service to each of the Defendants. Additional time is warranted to continue service attempts or 10 otherwise request leave of this Court to serve the Unserved Defendants via alternative means. 11 Additionally, the specific factors discussed in Sheehan support a finding of good cause. 12 First, the Unserved Defendants have likely received actual notice of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs 13 mailed copies of the complaint along with requests for waiver of service of summons to the 14 Defendants,1 and they transmitted a copy of the complaint to an attorney serving as counsel to 15 the Defendant restaurant in another matter who acknowledged receipt and indicated that she 16 had informed her client. See Rothell Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9, 11. Taken together, the Unserved 17 Defendants are highly likely to have received actual notice of the lawsuit. 18 Second, the Unserved Defendants will suffer no prejudice if a brief 45-day extension is 19 granted. Despite having “a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons,” Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 4(d)(1), and failing to waive service, Unserved Defendants have chosen to not cooperate 21 with these proceedings. Indeed, even before filing suit, Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants “over 22 fifty times, by phone, mail, and email,” to educate them about their obligations under copyright 23 law and therefore avoid this lawsuit altogether, but the Defendants did not respond. See Compl. 24 at ¶ 22. A brief extension of 45 days will not cause the Unserved Defendants any prejudice. 25 26 1 The Defendants’ addresses were taken from the Nevada Secretary of State’s registration for Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, which identified each of the other Defendants as managing members 27 of the limited liability company. See Rothell Decl. at ¶ 5. ] Third, Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if no extension is granted and this case is dismissed 2 || without prejudice. Although the statute of limitations has not yet been reached, Plaintiffs would 3 ||incur attorneys’ fees related to refiling the lawsuit, costs associated with reinstating service, and 4 || other harm related to the delays associated with obtaining relief on its claims. Accordingly, there 5 good cause to extend the time for Plaintiffs to accomplish service. And, even if the Court 6 || were to find that good cause has not been shown, an extension is still warranted under Rule 7 || 4(m)’s discretionary authority. 8 Conclusion 9 In light of the foregoing, there is good cause to extend the time by which Plaintiffs may 10 || serve Defendants Tony Saroya, Raja Mittal, and Surjit Heera by 45 days, and Plaintiffs ask this 11 || Court to grant the requested extension. 12 13 Dated: July 23, 2025. DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C. 14 By: /s/ Trey A. Rothell TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ. 15 Nevada Bar No. 15993 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 16 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 17 Attorney for Plaintiffs 18 19 20 |} □□ SO ORDERED. Plaintiff shall have until September 7, 2025 within which to serve Defendants. 21 97 || DATED: 7/24/2025 23 24 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 95 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 -4- Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and Section IV of District of Nevada Electronic Filing 3 Procedures, I certify that I am an employee of DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C., 4 and that the foregoing was served: 5 via electronic service to the address(es) shown below: 6 7 via the U.S. Postal Service at Las Vegas, Nevada, in a sealed envelope, with first- class postage prepaid, on the date and to the address(es) shown below: 8 9 Pure Mexican Grill, LLC Yogendra Solanki 10169 Terrastone Drive 6512 Norris Road 10 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Bakersfield, CA 93308 11 Tony Saroya Raja Mittal 12 9680 S Tenaya Way 10169 Terrastone Drive Las Vegas, NV 89178 Las Vegas, NV 89148 13 Surjit Heera 14 6598 Abalone Shell Court Las Vegas, NV 89139 15 16 Date: July 23, 2025 /s/ Trey A. Rothell An employee of Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar P.C. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ. MICHAEL D. RAWLINS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15993 Nevada Bar No. 5467 2 DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C. 3271 East Warm Springs Road 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 3 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (702) 832-1670 Telephone: (801) 415-3000 Designated only for personal service 4 Facsimile: (801) 415-3500 under Nev. SCR 42.1 trey.rothell@dentons.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for 9 Broadcast Music, LLC; WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.; Case No.: 2:25-cv-727-JCM-DJA 10 UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF 11 ROSE MUSIC; HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and HIFROST PUBLISHING, INDEX OF EXHIBITS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a 15 MARIPOSA COCINA & COCKTAILS; TONY SAROYA, an individual; YOGENDRA 16 SOLANKI, an individual; RAJA MITTAL, an individual, and SURJIT HEERA, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 Exh. Description 21 - Declaration of Trey A. Rothell 22 1 Affidavits of Diligent Attempts 23 2 Email from Chata N. Holt to Trey A. Rothell dated May 19, 2025 24 25 26 27 1 TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ. MICHAEL D. RAWLINS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15993 Nevada Bar No. 5467 2 DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C. 3271 East Warm Springs Road 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 3 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (702) 832-1670 Telephone: (801) 415-3000 Designated only for personal service 4 Facsimile: (801) 415-3500 under Nev. SCR 42.1 trey.rothell@dentons.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for 9 Broadcast Music, LLC; WARNER- TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.; Case No.: 2:25-cv-727-JCM-DJA 10 UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF 11 ROSE MUSIC; HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and HIFROST PUBLISHING, DECLARATION OF 12 TREY A. ROTHELL Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a 15 MARIPOSA COCINA & COCKTAILS; TONY SAROYA, an individual; YOGENDRA 16 SOLANKI, an individual; RAJA MITTAL, an individual, and SURJIT HEERA, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 I, TREY A. ROTHELL, declare: 20 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR 21 P.C., counsel of record for Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, Inc., as agent for Broadcast Music, LLC, 22 Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp., Unichappel Music Inc., Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a 23 Sony/ATV Acuff Rose Music, Hip City Music Inc., and Hifrost Publishing (“Plaintiffs”) in the 24 above-entitled matter. I am licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada. 25 2. I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time for Service 26 of Process (the “Motion”), filed herewith. 27 1 3. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except as to those matters set 2 forth based on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called 3 to testify, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth herein. 4 4. Plaintiffs initiated this action on April 25, 2025, and on or about April 28, 2025, 5 my office initiated service of process on the Defendants through Nationwide Legal, a company 6 that contracts with licensed process servers in various jurisdictions. 7 5. I obtained addresses for each of the Defendants from the Nevada Secretary of 8 State’s entity listing for Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, in which the individual defendants were listed 9 as managing members. I attempted to verify the addresses to the best of my ability using available 10 public records and believed the addresses to be accurate. 11 6. Despite repeated attempts by Nationwide Legal and its process servers, service was 12 not accomplished based upon those initial attempts. The documents attached to the Motion as 13 Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of the Affidavits of Diligent Attempts submitted to my office 14 by Nationwide Legal, reflecting their various service attempts. 15 7. I conducted a search of the local court database and identified attorney Chata N. 16 Holt as representing Defendant Pure Mexican Grill, LLC in an unrelated, active state-court matter. 17 8. I contacted Ms. Holt on May 16, 2025, informing her of this lawsuit and asking her 18 to request that the Defendants authorize her to accept service on their behalf or otherwise help 19 facilitate service of process in this matter. 20 9. Ms. Holt responded to my email on May 19, 2025, stating: “I am waiting to hear 21 from my client. I will respond with an answer asap.” The document attached to the Motion as 22 Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of this email. 23 10. I sent follow-up messages to Ms. Holt on May 19, 2025, May 21, 2025, and June 24 3, 2025, but received no other responses from her. 25 11. On May 20, 2025, my office transmitted requests for waivers of service of 26 summons, following the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), to each of the Defendants. 27 1 I sent copies of the request packages to Ms. Holt via email as well on May 21, 2025. Upon 2 information and belief, no Defendant returned a waiver of service of summons. 3 12. On July 15, 2025, I contacted Legal Wings, another company that coordinates 4 service of process, to reattempt service of process on the Defendants. 5 13. Upon information and belief, Defendants Pure Mexican Grill, LLC and Yogendra 6 Solanki were served on July 18, 2025. 7 14. Upon information and belief, service of process has not been completed as to 8 Defendants Tony Saroya, Raja Mittal, or Surjit Heera despite process servers making four recent 9 attempts on Defendant Saroya, four recent attempts on Defendant Mittal, and two recent attempts 10 on Defendant Heera. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 12 Executed on July 23, 2025, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 13 /s/ Trey A. Rothell TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT 1

Affidavits of Diligent Attempts

EXHIBIT 1 1 | AFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE 2 | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 | CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA | 4 | BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for Broadcast Case No.:2:25-cv-00727 | Music, LLC; WARNERTAMERLANE PUBLISHING TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ., Bar No. 15993 CORP.; UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 5 || SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF ROSE MUSIC; 7160 Rafael Rivera Way 320 HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and HIFROST PUBLISHING, 6 Las Vegas, NV 89113 allt (702) 678-5070 7 “ Attorneys for the Plaintiff Client File# 34343-3141 8 || PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a MARIPOSA COCINA & COCKTAILS; et al., 9 | Defendant(s) 10 | | I, Tyler Trewet, being sworn, states: That | am a licensed process server registered in Nevada. | received a copy of 11 | the Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement; Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A Copyright, from ARMSTRONG 12 || TEASDALE LLP 13 | That attempts were made to serve Pure Mexican Grill, LLC - c/o Raja Mittal - Registered Agent, with Summons In A | Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement; Report On The Filing Or | 14 | Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A Copyright, at: | Attempted at 10169 Terrastone Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148 On 5/2/2025 at 5:35 PM | Results: No access through gate, no code, no traffic. 16 | Attempted at 10169 Terrastone Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148 On 5/3/2025 at 4:35 PM Results: No response at door, no activity. Package on porch addressed to Anjie Mitt. 17 | Attempted at 10169 Terrastone Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148 On 5/7/2025 at 11:14 AM Results: No access, no traffic, no code.

19 I being duly sworn, states: that all times herein, Affiant was and is over 18 years of age, not a party to or interested in the proceedings in which this Affidavit is made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 20) : Date: 27/25 21 22 (No Notary Per NRS 53.045) | TylerTrewe Service Provided for: 23 | . . Registered’ Work Card# R201904184 Nationwide Legal Nevada, LLC | Siete of Nevada 610 S. 10th Street 24) Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 385-5444 Nevada Lic # 1656 26 Be ifn) | ee] a 27 || Beata at are Tee Cole: Ty 28 petite || Control #:NV311151 |

1| AFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA 4 BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for Broadcast Case No.:2:25-cv-727 Music, LLC; WARNERTAMERLANE PUBLISHING TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ., Bar No. 15993 CORP.; UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV ' ' ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 5 || SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF ROSE MUSIC; 7160 Rafael Rivera Way 320 | HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and HIFROST PUBLISHING, y 6|| Las Vegas, NV 89113 | Plaintifiis) (702) 678-5070 7| ve Attomeys for the Plaintiffs | Client File# 34343-31 8 | PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a MARIPOSA | COCINA & COCKTAILS; et al., 9)| Defendant(s) 10) | I, Tyler Trewet, being sworn, states: That | am a licensed process server registered in Nevada. I received a copy of 14 | the Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement: | Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A Copyright, from ARMSTRONG 12 | TEASDALE LLP 13 That attempts were made to serve Raja Mittal with Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement; Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A Copyright, at: 15 | Attempted at 10169 Terrastone Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148 On 5/2/2025 at 5:35 PM | Results: No access through gate, no code, no traffic. 16 | Attempted at 10169 Terrastone Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148 On 5/3/2025 at 4:35 PM | Results: No response at door, no activity. Package on porch addressed to Anjie Mitt. 17 | Attempted at 10169 Terrastone Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148 On 5/7/2025 at 11:14 AM 18 || Results: No access, no code, no traffic.

19 | I being duly sworn, states: that all times herein, Affiant was and is over 18 years of age, not a party to or interested in the proceedings in which this Affidavit is made. | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. | 20 Date: _spyps 21) 99 || oS (No Notary Per NRS 53.045) T Service Provided for: 23 |) Saas Nationwide Legal Nevada, LLC || Registered Work Card# R201904184 = ; \l State ek Nevada 610 S. 10th Street 24 | Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 385-5444 25 Nevada Lic # 1656 Biperesc 4 ry Cs 4 ea ; | eaey 28 Hate | fl rat | Control #:NV311156

| 1|| AFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA 4 BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for Broadcast Case No.:2:25-cv-00727 Music, LLC; WARNERTAMERLANE PUBLISHING TREY A. ROTHELL, ESQ., Bar No. 15993 CORP.; UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV | ! ARMSTRONG TEASDALE L SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF ROSE MUSIC: 7460 Rafael River □□ i | HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and HIFROST PUBLISHING, era Way 6 || Las Vegas, NV 89113 | Plaintiff) (702) 678-5070 z | V Attorneys for the Plaintiffs | Client File# 34343-31 8 | PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a MARIPOSA | COCINA & COCKTAILS; et al., 9) Defendant(s)

| I, Tyler Trewet, being sworn, states: That I am a licensed process server registered in Nevada. I received a copy of 11 || the Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement; | Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A Copyright, from ARMSTRONG 12 || TEASDALE LLP 13) That attempts were made to serve Surjit Heera with Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested || Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement: Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A 14 | Copyright, at: 15 | Attempted at 6598 Abalone Shell Court, Las Vegas, NV 89139 On 5/2/2025 at 5:12 PM Results: No response at door. No activity within, 16 | Attempted at 6598 Abalone Shell Court, Las Vegas, NV 89139 On 5/3/2025 at 3:55 PM | Results: No response at door. No activity. No change. 17 | Attempted at 6598 Abalone Shell Court, Las Vegas, NV 89139 On 5/7/2025 at 10:58 AM 48 | Results: No response. No activity. No changes. | I being duly sworn, states: that all times herein, Affiant was and is over 18 years of age, not a party to or interested in 19 || □□□ . . . Beet | the proceedings in which this Affidavit is made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 20 Date: _sfups 21) 22 | Oe (No Notary Per NRS 53.045) | Tyler-Erew Service Provided for: 23 | ionwi 9 | Registered Work Card# R201904184 Nationwide Legal Nevada, LLC Nevada 610 S. 10th Street 24 || Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 385-5444 25 Nevada Lic # 1656 26 | El aver

Ber 28) aA aa | Control #:NV311157

| 1 AFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE 2| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 | CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA | BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for Broadcast Case No.:2:25-cv-00727 4) | | Music, LLC; WARNERTAMERLANE PUBLISHING ‘none | CORP.; UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 5 || SONGS LLC d/b/a SONY/ATV ACUFF ROSE MUSIC; 7160 Rafael Rivera Way 320 | HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; and HIFROST PUBLISHING, Las Vegas, NV 89113 | (702) 678-5070 Plaintiff 7 3 Inn) Attomeys for the Plaintiff | Client File# 34343-31 8 | PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a MARIPOSA || COCINA & COCKTAILS; et al., 9 | || Defendant(s) 10 | I, Tyler Trewet, being sworn, states: That I am a licensed process server registered in Nevada. I received a copy of 11 the Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement; | Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A Copyright, from ARMSTRONG 12 | TEASDALE LLP 13 | That attempts were made to serve Tony Saroya with Summons In A Civil Action; Complaint; Certificate Of Interested plaint; | Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement; Report On The Filing Or Determination Of Action Or Appeal Regarding A 14 | Copyright, at: 15 Attempted at 9680 S. Tenaya Way, Las Vegas, NV 89178 On 5/2/2025 at 6:12 PM | Results: No response at door, no noise, no movement. 16 | Attempted at 9680 S. Tenaya Way, Las Vegas, NV 89178 On 5/3/2025 at 4:25 PM Results: No response at door, noise and movement within. 17 Attempted at 9680 S. Tenaya Way, Las Vegas, NV 89178 On 5/7/2025 at 11:30 AM 48 | Results: No response, no activity. 19 | being duly sworn, states: that all times herein, Affiant was and is over 18 years of age, not a party to or interested in | the proceedings in which this Affidavit is made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. | 20), | Date: Sf2I/ 21 || 22 | (No Notary Per NRS 53.045) Tyler Tr Service Provided for: || Registered Work Card# R201904184 Batenwide: gee! Menadaylhy 2A State of Nevada 610'S, 10th Bieet Las Vegas, NV 89101 | (702) 385-5444 25 | Nevada Lic # 1656 Peete 27) □□□ Saray | Rake Sid oe | feeealeh et Ef 28 | ne RSE Control #:NV311152

1 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT ATTEMPTS 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., as agent for Broadcast Music, _cy- 4 LLC; WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.; Gase No. 2:25-ev-00727 UNICHAPPEL MUSIC INC.; SONY/ATV SONGS LLC dib/a Trey A. Rothell, Esq. (NV Bar No. 15993) 5 SONY/ATV ACUFF ROSE MUSIC; HIP CITY MUSIC INC.; ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP and HIFROST PUBLISHING, 7160 Rafael Rivera Way, Suite 320 6 Plaintiffs, Las Vegas, NV 89113 VW, (702) 678-5070 7 PURE MEXICAN GRILL, LLC d/b/a MARIPOSA COCINA & Attomeys for Plaintiffs 8 COCKTAILS; TONY SAROYA, an individual; YOGENDRA SOLANKI, an individual; RAJA MITTAL, an individual, and SURJIT HEERA, an individual, 9 Defendants. I, Norma Gutierrez, being sworn, states: That I am a licensed process server registered in the State of California. I received a copy of the SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION (to: Yogendra Solanki); SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION (to: Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, c/o Raja Mittal); COMPLAINT; REPORT ON THE FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN 11 || ACTION OR APPEAL REGARDING A COPYRIGHT; PLAINTIFFS’ CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, from ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 12 That attempts were made to serve YOGENDRA SOLANKI at: 13 Attempted at 6512 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 4/30/2025 at 8:56 AM Results: No answer at home. Attempted at 6512 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 5/2/2025 at 6:43 PM 15 |} Results: No answer at home. The residence appears dark. Attempted at 6512 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 5/4/2025 at 10:09 AM 16 || Results: I spoke to a Middle Eastern Male who stated Servee is the owner of the property but doesn't live here. Male said that Servee owns the Valero Convenience Store located at 6508 Norris Rd. and to go there - he should be there. 17 || *ADDITIONAL SERVICE ADDRESS ATTEMPTED* Attempted at 6508 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 5/5/2025 at 10:20 AM Results: Defendant is not in the office during this attempt. Per employees, Def. is usually here in the morning. Attempted at 6508 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 5/6/2025 at 12:05 PM Results: Not in during time of attempt. Servee is out of town and will be returning on Monday. (5/12/25) Attempted at 6508 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 5/12/2025 at 8:50 AM |) Results: Servee hasn't been in today. Attempted at 6508 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA 93308 On 5/14/2025 at 10:22 AM || Results: Mr. Solanki has already left for the day. I left my cell phone number requesting a call-back.

I being duly sworm, states: that all times herein, Affiant was and is over 18 years of age, not a party to or interested in the proceedings in which this Affidavit is made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 7 wl “IL S

Service Provided for: Nationwide Legal, LLC 610 S. 10th Street || NORMA GUTIERRE Las Vegas, NV 89101 Co. Beg. Na. 4 (702) 385-5444 || State of California Nevada Lic. No. 1656 Control No. NV311154 Reference: 34343-31

EXHIBIT 2

Email from Chata N. Holt to Trey A. Rothell dated May 19, 2025

EXHIBIT 2 Rothell, Trey From: Chata Holt Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 9:41 AM To: Trey A. Rothell Subject: Re: Broadcast Music Inc., et al. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, et al. | 2:25-cv-00727-JCM-DJA [IMAN-IDOCS.34343.31.FID15217457]

This message needs your attention * This is their first email to your company.

Mr. Rothell, lam waiting to hear from my client. | will respond with an answer asap. you!

nl LAW GROUP, LLC Chata N. Holt, Esq. 100 S. Maryland Pkwy., Suite 210N Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 702.674.6775 725.257.0002 (fax) communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 19 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and the disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. Please check for any defects or viruses before opening or using any attachments. There is no warranty that e-mail is virus free or without error.

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 1:41 PM Trey A. Rothell wrote: Ms. Holt,

| hope you’re doing well, and it’s very nice to meet you.

lam an attorney here in Las Vegas representing Broadcast Music, Inc. and several music copyright owners in a recent action filed in the District of Nevada against Pure Mexican Grill, LLC d/b/a Mariposa Cocina & Cocktails, and its managing members Tony Saroya, Yogendra Solanki, Raja Mittal, and Surjit Heera. I’ve attached the filed complaint and summonses.

Despite multiple attempts, our process servers have been unable to complete service on the defendants. | noticed you represent Pure Mexican Grillin another matter pending locally and wanted to ask whether you would be willing to accept service on behalf of the LLC or coordinate with your clients to facilitate service.

lam very hopeful that this case can be resolved quickly, and addressing this service of process issue early on will hopefully help us reach that goal, especially since my clients’ claims are fee-shifting.

Please let me know if this is something you’re able to assist with, or if you'd like to discuss further.

Thanks, -Trey

Armstrong Teasdale LLP r R Associate Attorney 7160 Rafael Rivera Way, Suite 320, Las Vegas, NV 89113 MAIN PHONE: 702.678.5070 | MAIN FAX: 702.878.9995 DIRECT: 702.415.2947 | Extension: 323 | CELL: 321.460.0263 trothell@atllp.com www.armstrongteasdale.com Always exceed expectations through teamwork and excellent client service. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL********** This transmission and any attached files are privileged, confidential or otherwise the exclusive property of the

have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately by email (admin@atllp.com) or by telephone (+1 800.243.5070) and promptly destroy the original transmission and its attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Armstrong Teasdale LLP shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Armstrong Teasdale LLP may monitor email traffic data. Please read our Global Privacy Policy to find out how Armstrong Teasdale LLP processes personal information.

Armstrong Teasdale LLP is a Missouri-registered limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, USA.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Pure Mexican Grill, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadcast-music-inc-v-pure-mexican-grill-llc-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack