Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company v. DIV Holdings, LLC.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 5, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-01516
StatusUnknown

This text of Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company v. DIV Holdings, LLC. (Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company v. DIV Holdings, 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
Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company v. DIV Holdings, LLC., (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 | TYSON & MENDES LLP PRISCILLA L. O’BRIANT 2 || Nevada Bar No. 10171 Email: pobriant@tysonmendes.com 3 || 2835 St. Rose Pkwy, Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 4 || Tel: (702) 724-2648 Fax: (702) 410-7684 5 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 || Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company, a Case No. 2:23-cv-01516-JCM-MDC California corporation, 10 MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE Plaintiff, OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT JORGE 1] ABARCA vs. 12 DIV Holdings, LLC d/b/a Jardin Premium 13 || Cannabis Dispensary, a Nevada limited liability company; DIV Realty, LLC, a Nevada limited “; 14 || liability company; Jorge Abarca, an individual; 2 DOES 1-20; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 - 20, = 15 |] inclusive,

16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Falls Lake Fire Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company (‘Falls Lake”), by and 18 || through its counsel of records, hereby moves this Court for leave to serve Defendant Jorge 19 || Abarca via publication. 20 Abarca has proven elusive to serve despite the best efforts of Falls Lake and its process 21 || servers. This defendant is either not at his last known address, evading service through the 22 || person appearing at the subject address, or is unavailable for service at any other address that 23 || plaintiff's process servers investigated. 24 Based on the failure of its efforts to result in service on Defendant Jorge Abarca, Plaintiff 25 || Falls Lake filed its Ex Parte Motion for Order to Enlarge Time for Service of Complaint on 26 || Defendant Jorge Abarca on December 26, 2023 (ECF 15). Falls Lake thereafter filed an 27 || Amended Ex Parte Motion for Order to Enlarge Time for Service of Complaint on Defendant 28 || Jorge Abarca (First Request) (ECF 18) due to additional information obtained from its

1 || investigators. Plaintiff also sought to extend the deadline by 90 days rather than the original 60 2 || days requested to allow time for consideration of its Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service of 3 || Process on Defendant Jorge Abarca (ECF 17) which was filed concurrently therewith, and time 4 || to effect service by publication on Jorge Abarca should it be granted. 5 Falls Lake originally filed its prior motions as “ex parte” motions as it would not be able 6 || to serve the motions upon Defendant Jorge Abarca. However, upon further review, an ex parte 7 || motion is a motion or application that is filed with the court “but is not served on the opposing or 8 || other parties.” LR IA 7-2. This motion has been served on “all counsel of record” in the case. 9 || Thus, Falls Lake re-files this motion as a standard motion.! 10 FRCP 4(e)(1) allows service upon an individual by following state law for serving a 11 || summons. This Court is located in the District of Nevada. Falls Lake was unable to serve 12 || Defendant Jorge Abarca within 90 days after the complaint was filed despite numerous efforts. 13 || In such instances, and upon a showing that other methods of service are impracticable, the

14 || Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (“NRCP”), upon motion and without notice to the person being 2 15 || served, allow a court to direct that service be made by publication. NRCP 4.4(c).

16 This Motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, the 17 || Declaration of Priscilla L. O’Briant and other exhibits attached hereto, and any argument the 18 || Court may hear on a hearing associated with this motion. 19 DATED this 16" day of February, 2024, 20 TYSON & MENDES LLP 21 By: /s/Priscilla L. O’Briant 22 PRISCILLA O’BRIANT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10171 23 TYSON & MENDES LLP 2835 St. Rose Pkwy, Suite #140 24 Henderson, NV 89052 Attorneys for Plaintiff 25 | /// 26 | /// 27 || | See e.g., Georgiou Fam. Tr. v. Ruthen, No. 221CV1060JCMDJA, 2021 WL 5370233, at *1 (D. 2g || Nev. Nov. 17, 2021)

1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 I. 4 INTRODUCTION 5 Plaintiff Falls Lake has been unable to effect service on Abarca despite the best efforts of 6 || Falls Lake and its process servers. Abarca is not at the home address listed with the Nevada 7 || DMV or a prior address identified in a background search. Additionally, Falls Lake has been 8 || unable to serve Abarca at any other location discovered by Falls Lake and its investigator and 9 || process servers. Falls Lake seeks leave to serve Abarca by other means. Nevada State law 10 || allows for service via publication where other methods of attempted service have failed. The 11 || Declaration of Priscilla L. O’Briant and affidavits of due diligence in serving Abarca 12 || demonstrate the efforts of Falls Lake to personally serve Abarca. For these reasons, the Court 3 13 || should grant Falls Lake leave to serve Abarca via publication. 14 Il. BACKGROUND : 15 On March 27, 2023, Defendant Abarca filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Eighth 16 || Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada captioned Abarca yv. Nash, et. al., case number A- 17 || 23-867873-C (the “underlying Action”). See Declaration of Priscilla L. O’Briant in Support of 18 || Motion for Alternative Service of Process on Defendant Jorge Abarca, attached hereto as Exhibit 19 || 1 (Ex. 1”), § 4, and Exhibit A thereto, page 1. The Complaint names DIV Realty, LLC (“DIV 20 || Realty”); DIV Holdings, LLC (“DIV Holdings”); Blackbriar Protective Services, LLC; and Cory 21 || Nash as Defendants. Jd. DIV Realty and DIV Holdings are hereafter collectively referred to as 22 || the “DIV Defendants”. The Complaint alleges Jorge Abarca was, at all times relevant, a resident 23 || of Clark County, Nevada. /d. 24 Falls Lake insured DIV Holdings, LLC under a Commercial General Liability Policy, 25 || Policy No. FLF-NV-PK-03279-02 (the “Policy”). On September 26, 2023, Falls Lake instituted 26 || the present Declaratory Judgment action to determine its obligations to the DIV Defendants 27 || under the Policy. The Complaint names Jorge Abara as a proper party to the action. See 28 || Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, on file herein as ECF, page 1.

] Under FRCP 4(m) and FRCP 6(a)(1)(C), the deadline for Falls Lake to serve the 2 || defendants was December 26, 2023. Falls Lake timely served the DIV Defendants. See 3 || Affidavits of Service, on file herein as ECF 8 and 8-1. 4 However, Falls Lake has not been able to serve Abarca. This was not the result of 5 || inadvertence or lack of effort. Falls Lake’s process servers attempted service at various 6 || addresses. Falls Lake also hired an investigator which used its own techniques to identify an 7 || address to effectuate personal service but service could not be effected at this address. 8 Thus, on December 26, 2023, Falls Lake filed its Ex Parte Motion for Order to Enlarge 9 || Time for Service of Complaint on Defendant Jorge Abarca. ECF 15. Falls Lake thereafter filed 10 || an Amended Ex Parte Motion for Order to Enlarge Time for Service of Complaint on Defendant 11 || Jorge Abarca (First Request) (ECF 18) due to additional information obtained from its 12 || investigators. Plaintiff also sought to extend the deadline by 90 days rather than the original 60 3 13 || days requested to allow time for consideration of its Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service of 14 || Process on Defendant Jorge Abarca (ECF 17) which was filed concurrently therewith. The : 15 || original motion to enlarge time (ECF 15) was denied as moot, and the amended motion to 16 || enlarge (ECF 18) was denied without prejudice. The original motion for alternative process 17 || (ECF 17 was denied without prejudice.

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

Related

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.
312 U.S. 270 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Hunt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
655 F. Supp. 284 (D. Nevada, 1987)
Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Kellas
173 F.2d 120 (First Circuit, 1949)
Hall v. Enterprise Leasing Co.
137 P.3d 1104 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company v. DIV Holdings, LLC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falls-lake-fire-and-casualty-company-v-div-holdings-llc-nvd-2024.