Las Vegas Wave Group, LLC, et al. v. Foster Gillett

Opinion

Las Vegas Wave Group, LLC, et al., 2 : 2 5-cv-02044-JAD-MDC

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE (ECF No. 9) vs. Foster Gillett, Defendant(s). Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend Time for Service. (“Motion”). ECF No. 9. The Court GRANTS the Motion, nunc pro tunc. Plaintiffs did not file anything by its proposed service deadline of March 23, 2026. Since the parties are working together to try to resolve this case, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline to serve the complaint until April 10, 2026. I. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within the United States pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., FRCP 4(e)(1). Rule 4 states that “the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)[.] There are several factors courts consider in evaluating a party's due diligence, including the number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. See Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 100, 102-104, 787 P.2d 785, 786-787 (Nev. 1990). Regarding extensions, “a district court may consider factors ‘like statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.’” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am. Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). // Plaintiffs’ Motion contains a declaration of counsel, who states that Gillett is aware of this litigation and the parties are continuing to work through private mediation issues. ECF No. 9 at 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel further states that Gillett’s counsel has indicated he will waive service in the event the parties are unable to agree to an early resolution of the case. /d. at 4. The Court has broad discretion to permit an extension under Rule 4 and grants plaintiff such extension. The defendant will be prejudiced by a reasonable extension. Since the proposed deadline has passed the Court sua sponte gives plaintiffs an additional two weeks to serve the complaint. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc. 2. The Court sua sponte extends the deadline to serve the complaint on the defendant until April 10, 2026. DATED: March 27, 2026. '6 IT IS SO ORDERED. “p. at (n9 a if i . a □ Hong aximivlans D. Couvilliepll fe United Statgt Mag\strate Jud fF ‘ff 1 □