Green Medical Marketing LLC v. Snavely

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 2, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01298
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 GREEN MEDICAL MARKETING LLC, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01298-APG-NJK

9 Plaintiff(s), Order

10 v. [Docket Nos. 7-8] 11 MICHAEL A. SNAVELY, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to extend the time to serve Defendant and 14 to approve service as outlined in N.R.S. 14.090. Docket Nos. 7-8. No response has been filed. 15 The motions are properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 16 discussed more fully below, the motion to extend time is GRANTED and the motion for 17 alternative service is DENIED without prejudice. 18 I. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE 19 Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an 20 appropriate period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The motion establishes sufficient cause to extend 21 the time for effectuating service by 60 days from the issuance of this order. 22 II. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 23 Plaintiff next seeks an order that it be allowed to effectuate service in accordance with a 24 state law provision regarding service at a residence accessible only by a gate. Docket No. 8 at 4- 25 5. This motion will be denied without prejudice. 26 First, no legal authority has been presented providing standards or guidance as to when a 27 federal court may direct service be conducted in Plaintiff’s desired manner. Instead, the motion 28 provides a block quotation of the federal rule that state law governs service and then provides a 1} block quotation of the state law provision for service in gated communities. Jd. What is missing 2|| is meaningful discussion explaining why it would be proper in this case for the Court to order that service may be effectuated in the manner described. Absent such meaningful discussion, the Court 4|| declines to reach the issue. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). 6 Second, it appears the motion may be premature. Plaintiffs counsel attests that he emailed 7|| Defendant’s attorney about accepting service electronically a few days prior to filing the instant motion. See Docket No. 8-1 at | 8. There is a strong preference for waiver of service, accompanied by consequences for a defendant’s failure—without good cause—to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). 10] It does not appear that Plaintiff's efforts at obtaining a waiver have run their course. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons discussed above, the motion to extend time is GRANTED and the motion for alternative service is DENIED without prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 2, 2020 16 0 en z= ms Nancy J. Koppe* 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28