Jonathan Belfort v. Brian Farmer, et al.

D. Nevada

Jonathan Belfort v. Brian Farmer, et al.

DecidedApril 8, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00002

StatusUnknown

This text of Jonathan Belfort v. Brian Farmer, et al. (Jonathan Belfort v. Brian Farmer, et al.) 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

Jonathan Belfort v. Brian Farmer, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:26-cv-00002-MMD-CSD JONATHAN BELFORT, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 18 v. 6 BRIAN FARMER, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Clerk’s entry of default as to Brian Farmer and 10 Chad Giesinger pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 18.) Farmer and 11 Giesinger have specially appeared to oppose the motion, arguing that they have not been 12 properly served with the summons and complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 13 No. 21.) 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 9, 2026, against Washoe County, 16 Code Enforcement Officer Brian Farmer, Planning and Building Manager Chad Giesinger, and 17 Administrative Hearing Officer Elizabeth Webb Beyer. (ECF No. 7.) 18 On February 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a declaration of service indicating that Giesinger 19 and Farmer were served by leaving the summons and complaint with Paola Agramon, Office 20 Specialist, in the Building and Planning Department, on February 12, 2026. (ECF No. 12.) 21 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion requesting the Clerk’s entry of default as to 22 Farmer and Giesinger pursuant to Rule 55(a), arguing that they were served on February 12, 23 2026, and have not answered or otherwise defended this action. (ECF No. 18.) 1 Farmer and Giesinger have specially appeared to oppose this motion, arguing that they 2 have not been properly served with the summons and complaint. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Farmer and Geisinger are sued in their individual and official capacities.

5 An individual is served by following state law for service on an individual or by 6 delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally; leaving a copy at 7 the individual’s dwelling with someone of suitable age and discretion; or delivering a copy to an 8 agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of the individual. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). 9 Nevada law similarly provides that an individual is properly served by using any of these 10 same methods. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a). 11 Plaintiff did not deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to Farmer or Geisinger 12 personally. Nor did he leave a copy of the summons and complaint at their dwelling. Moreover, 13 Paola Agramon is not authorized to accept service on behalf of Farmer or Geisinger. (Geisinger 14 Decl., ECF No. 20-1; Farmer Decl., ECF No. 20-2.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not properly served

15 Farmer or Geisinger in their individual capacities. 16 Insofar as Farmer and Geisinger are sued in their official capacities, the suit is essentially 17 one against Washoe County. Washoe County is properly served by delivering a copy of the 18 summons and complaint to the chief executive officer or by following state law for service on the 19 county. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). Under Nevada law, a county is served by delivering a copy of the 20 summons and complaint to the presiding officer of the governing body or agent designated by 21 the presiding officer to receive service of process. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(d)(3). 22 23 ] There 1s nothing in the record to indicate that Plaintiff properly served Farmer or 2|| Geisinger in their official capacities in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) or Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(d)(3). 4 As Plaintiff has not properly served Farmer or Geisinger in either their individual or 5|| official capacities, the Clerk’s entry of default is not appropriate. See e.g. Mason v. Genisco 6|| Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992) (default judgment void where defendant not 7|| properly served); Olson v. Nevada, No. 3:23-cv-00513-ART-CLB, 2025 WL 1211037, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 25, 2025). 9 IH. CONCLUSION 10 Plaintiff's motion for entry of Clerk’s default as to Farmer and Giesinger (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. 12) IT IS SO ORDERED. 13]| Dated: April 8, 2026

Craig S. Denney 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:26-cv-00002-MMD-CSD JONATHAN BELFORT, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 18 v. 6 BRIAN FARMER, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Clerk’s entry of default as to Brian Farmer and 10 Chad Giesinger pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 18.) Farmer and 11 Giesinger have specially appeared to oppose the motion, arguing that they have not been 12 properly served with the summons and complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 13 No. 21.) 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 9, 2026, against Washoe County, 16 Code Enforcement Officer Brian Farmer, Planning and Building Manager Chad Giesinger, and 17 Administrative Hearing Officer Elizabeth Webb Beyer. (ECF No. 7.) 18 On February 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a declaration of service indicating that Giesinger 19 and Farmer were served by leaving the summons and complaint with Paola Agramon, Office 20 Specialist, in the Building and Planning Department, on February 12, 2026. (ECF No. 12.) 21 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion requesting the Clerk’s entry of default as to 22 Farmer and Giesinger pursuant to Rule 55(a), arguing that they were served on February 12, 23 2026, and have not answered or otherwise defended this action. (ECF No. 18.) 1 Farmer and Giesinger have specially appeared to oppose this motion, arguing that they 2 have not been properly served with the summons and complaint. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Farmer and Geisinger are sued in their individual and official capacities.

5 An individual is served by following state law for service on an individual or by 6 delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally; leaving a copy at 7 the individual’s dwelling with someone of suitable age and discretion; or delivering a copy to an 8 agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of the individual. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). 9 Nevada law similarly provides that an individual is properly served by using any of these 10 same methods. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a). 11 Plaintiff did not deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to Farmer or Geisinger 12 personally. Nor did he leave a copy of the summons and complaint at their dwelling. Moreover, 13 Paola Agramon is not authorized to accept service on behalf of Farmer or Geisinger. (Geisinger 14 Decl., ECF No. 20-1; Farmer Decl., ECF No. 20-2.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not properly served

15 Farmer or Geisinger in their individual capacities. 16 Insofar as Farmer and Geisinger are sued in their official capacities, the suit is essentially 17 one against Washoe County. Washoe County is properly served by delivering a copy of the 18 summons and complaint to the chief executive officer or by following state law for service on the 19 county. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). Under Nevada law, a county is served by delivering a copy of the 20 summons and complaint to the presiding officer of the governing body or agent designated by 21 the presiding officer to receive service of process. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(d)(3). 22 23 ] There 1s nothing in the record to indicate that Plaintiff properly served Farmer or 2|| Geisinger in their official capacities in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) or Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(d)(3). 4 As Plaintiff has not properly served Farmer or Geisinger in either their individual or 5|| official capacities, the Clerk’s entry of default is not appropriate. See e.g. Mason v. Genisco 6|| Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992) (default judgment void where defendant not 7|| properly served); Olson v. Nevada, No. 3:23-cv-00513-ART-CLB, 2025 WL 1211037, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 25, 2025). 9 IH. CONCLUSION 10 Plaintiff's motion for entry of Clerk’s default as to Farmer and Giesinger (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. 12) IT IS SO ORDERED. 13]| Dated: April 8, 2026

Craig S. Denney 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jonathan Belfort v. Brian Farmer, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-belfort-v-brian-farmer-et-al-nvd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack