Lynch v. Hernandez

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Tommy Lynch as administrator for the Case No. 2:21-cv-01981-JAD-DJA 6 estate of Tammy Lynch, and Tommy Lynch and April Black individually as 7 heirs of Tammy Lynch, Order

8 Plaintiffs,

9 v.

10 Samir Adrian Hernandez, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 13 This is a wrongful death case arising out of a watercraft collision in which Plaintiff 14 Tammy Lynch was killed. Plaintiffs Tommy Lynch—as the administrator of Tammy Lynch’s 15 estate and individually as her heir—and April Black—as Tammy Lynch’s heir—sue Defendants 16 Samir Adrian Hernandez; Lizbeth Barragan; Laughlin Watercraft Rentals LLC; Kabul, Inc.; and 17 Darryl Peter Alexander for damages, asserting negligence and wrongful death. Plaintiffs move to 18 extend the time for serving their complaint on Defendant Alexander—the operator of the 19 watercraft on which Tammy Lynch was a passenger—explaining that they need time to further 20 investigate and locate him. (ECF No. 13). In the alternative, Plaintiffs move to serve Alexander 21 via publication. (Id.). No other Defendants have responded. Because Plaintiffs have 22 demonstrated good cause to extend the deadline, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in part. The 23 Court finds these matters properly resolved without a hearing. LR 78-1. 24 Plaintiffs explain that they first attempted to serve Alexander at the address listed on his 25 driver’s license which he used to rent the watercraft. (ECF No. 13 at 2). Alexander’s mother 26 answered the door, said Alexander did not live there, and explained that she was unwilling to 27 provide further information. (Id.). To their motion, Plaintiffs also attached affidavits of due 1 that they found on search engines. (ECF No. 13-2). Attempts to serve Alexander at these 2 addresses and contact him via these phone numbers, however, were unsuccessful. (Id.). 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), 4 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the 5 plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 6 defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must 7 extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 8 The court has broad discretion when determining whether to extend time for service of 9 process. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 The Court finds good cause to extend the time for service. The current deadline to serve 11 all Defendants in this action is January 26, 2022. (ECF No. 13 at 2). Plaintiffs have preemptively 12 moved to extend this deadline after experiencing difficulties finding and serving Alexander, 13 demonstrating diligence in seeking to move the deadline. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated 14 diligence in trying to find and serve Alexander, as outlined in their affidavit. The Court thus 15 grants their motion to extend. Because the Court grants the motion to extend, it denies without 16 prejudice the alternative relief—service by publication—that Plaintiffs seek. Should Plaintiffs 17 still have difficulties locating Alexander, they may re-assert their motion for service by 18 publication. 19 Finally, the Court also strikes Exhibits 1 and 2 to Plaintiffs’ motion and orders Plaintiffs 20 to re-file copies that comply with Local Rule IC 6-1. (ECF No. 13-1; ECF No. 13-2). Exhibit 21 1contains a copy of Alexander’s driver’s license depicting his address and date of birth. (ECF 22 No. 13-1). Exhibit 2 includes various home addresses and Alexander’s birthday. (ECF No. 13- 23 2). This information is protected under Local Rule IC 6-1 from being filed on the docket in an 24 unredacted form. 25 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time (ECF No. 13) is 27 granted in part only regarding Plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline to serve Defendants. 1 prejudice. The deadline for service is extended sixty days from the date of this order to 2 Monday, March 21, 2022. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1 and 2 to Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 13-1; 4 ECF No. 13-2) are stricken for noncompliance under Local Rule IC 7-1. Plaintiffs must refile 5 these exhibits in compliance with Local Rule IC 6-1. 6 7 DATED: January 19, 2022 8 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27