Citibank, N.A. v. Ronald Bryla, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00732
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Citibank, N.A., 2:25-cv-00732-CDS-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SERVE 5 vs. BY PUBLICATION AND EXTEND TIME 6 FOR SERVICE (ECF No. 24) Ronald Bryla, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Serve by Publication and Extend Time for Service. (“Motion”). ECF 9 No. 24. The Court GRANTS the Motion IN PART. The Court will allow plaintiff until November 3, 10 2025 to serve defendant Ronald Bryla but denies the request to serve by publication without prejudice 11 since service by publication is a last resort. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within the United States pursuant to 14 the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., FRCP 15 4(e)(1). Rule 4 states that “the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served 16 within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)[.] 17 There are several factors courts consider in evaluating a party's due diligence, including the 18 number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating 19 defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. See Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 20 100, 102-104, 787 P.2d 785, 786-787 (Nev. 1990). Other courts have recognized that considering 21 “due process concerns, service by publication must be allowed ‘only as a last resort.’” Hernandez v. 22 Russell, No. 320CV00114MMDCSD, 2022 WL 347552, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2022), citing to Price 23 v. Thomas, No. 21-cv-06370-DMR, 2021 WL 5564795, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2021) (emphasis 24 added; citation and quotation marks omitted). This is because “it is generally recognized that service 25 1 by publication rarely results in actual notice.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). District 2 courts retain broad discretion to permit service-of-process extensions under Rule 4(m). See Mann v. 3 Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Regarding extensions, “a district court may 4 consider factors ‘like statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, 5 and eventual service.’” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Troxell v. 6 Fedders of N. Am. Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). 7 II. ANALYSIS 8 Plaintiff argues in its Motion that they have been unable to serve defendant Ronald Bryla. ECF 9 No. 24. Plaintiff argues that it has attempted to serve defendant at two addresses, and it attempted to 10 search for an updated address, but it has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff asks the Court to be allowed to 11 serve Bryla by publication. Plaintiff submits a declaration from a process server that states that he 12 attempted to serve plaintiff at his last known address in Nevada, but the current resident (co-defendant 13 Darrell Baugh) stated that Bryla did not live there. ECF No. 24-1. A second declaration from a process 14 server in Hawaii states that the unit it attempted service on was vacant and neighbors stated that Bryla 15 moved months ago. ECF No. 21-2. In his declaration, plaintiff’s counsel states that he attempted to 16 search Westlaw tools but could only find the two Nevada and Hawaii addresses that it attempted to 17 serve. ECF No. 24-3 at 3. 18 Plaintiff’s asserted efforts, however, require more detail and development. Counsel states only 19 that he used Westlaw to find the two addresses, but he does not articulate or describe how he 20 researched different public and online records or whether he has any leads on additional addresses. For 21 example, counsel states that he conducted “updated searches” after the two failed service attempts, but 22 he does not articulate how he attempted updated searches. See e.g., ECF No. 24-3 at ¶9. The Court 23 finds that plaintiff has not shown sufficient diligence in attempting to serve the defendant to support 24 that service by publication, the last resort, is appropriate. Counsel has not investigated other likely 25 1 sources of information to locate and serve the defendant prior to seeking the last resort of service by 2 publication. Plaintiff also failed support its request for service by publication with the necessary 3 information required by NRCP 4.4(c)(2)(C)&(D). The Court has broad discretion to permit an 4 extension under Rule 4. The defendants will not be prejudiced by a reasonable extension. 5 ACCORDINGLY, 6 IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve by Publication or Alternative Means And Extend Time for 8 9 Service (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED AND DENIED IN PART. 10 2. Plaintiff’s request to serve the defendant by publication is DENIED WITHOUT 11 PREJUDICE. 12 3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to serve the defendant Ronald Bryla is 13 GRANTED: plaintiff has until November 3, 2025, to serve the defendant or seek a further 14 extension consistent with this order. 15 DATED: October 3, 2025. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 _________________________

19 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25