Leonard Loh v. Lanston Loh, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 20, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Leonard Loh, 2:25-cv-02441-CDS-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SERVE 5 vs. BY PUBLICATION (ECF No. 13) 6 Lanston Loh, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Serve by Publication. (“Motion”). ECF No. 13. The Court DENIES 9 the Motion. The Court denies the request to serve by publication at this time because service by 10 publication is a last resort, and plaintiff only recently filed this case. 11 I. LEGAL STANDARD 12 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within the United States pursuant to 13 the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., FRCP 14 4(e)(1). Rule 4 states that “the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served 15 within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)[.] 16 There are several factors courts consider in evaluating a party's due diligence, including the 17 number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating 18 defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. See Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 19 100, 102-104, 787 P.2d 785, 786-787 (Nev. 1990). Other courts have recognized that considering 20 “due process concerns, service by publication must be allowed ‘only as a last resort.’” Hernandez v. 21 Russell, No. 320CV00114MMDCSD, 2022 WL 347552, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2022), citing to Price 22 v. Thomas, No. 21-cv-06370-DMR, 2021 WL 5564795, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2021) (emphasis 23 added; citation and quotation marks omitted). This is because “it is generally recognized that service 24 by publication rarely results in actual notice.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). 25 1 OL. ANALYSIS 2 Plaintiff argues in its Motion that they have been unable to serve defendant Peggy Chia Loh. 3 || ECF No. 24. Plaintiff argues that he has attempted to serve her at her only known address multiple 4 || times, but he has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff asks the Court to be allowed to serve her by publication. 5 || Plaintiff submits a declaration from a process server that states that he attempted to serve Ms. Loh at 6 || her last known address in Nevada a few times, but no one answered the door. ECF No. 13-3. Plaintiff 7 || also attached a declaration from a private investigator which states that per his research into voter’s 8 || and vehicle records, he believes he has the correct address for Ms. Loh. 9 Plaintiffs asserted efforts, however, require more detail and development. While the Court is 10 || aware of plaintiff's allegations regarding alleged theft of cryptocurrency, this case is only a few weeks 11 || old. Due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the lawsuit. 12 || Plaintiff has only attempted service a few times at a single location. The Court finds that plaintiff has 13 || not shown sufficient diligence in attempting to serve the defendant to support that service by 14 || publication, the last resort, is appropriate at this stage in the litigation. Counsel has not investigated 15 || other likely sources of information to locate and serve the defendant prior to seeking the last resort of 16 || service by publication. 17 ACCORDINGLY, 19 IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Serve by Publication (ECF No. 13) is DENIED

|| Without prejudice. 1 DATED: January 20, 2026. 4y □ 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Aff 23 I, fo /, a □ High. Maximiliano¥ Couvillier I 25 Pnited States 7