Marisol Levi v. Global Innovations Bank, et al.
This text of Marisol Levi v. Global Innovations Bank, et al. (Marisol Levi v. Global Innovations Bank, 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.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3
4 MARISOL LEVI, Case No. 2:25-cv-01201-GMN-NJK 5 Plaintiff, Order 6 v. [Docket Nos. 53, 54] 7 GLOBAL INNOVATIONS BANK, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s second motion to extend the time for service, 10 Docket No. 54, and Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendant David Hales by publication. Docket No. 11 53. 12 I. EXTENSION REQUEST 13 Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an 14 appropriate period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff established sufficient cause to extend the 15 time for effectuating service to February 22, 2026. See Docket No. 54. 16 II. SERVICE BY PUBLICATION OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE MEANS 17 Plaintiff also seeks leave to serve Defendant David Hales by publication. See Docket No. 18 53. Due process requires that a defendant in a civil action be given notice of the action that is 19 reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the pendency of the action and afford the 20 defendant an opportunity to present his or her objection. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust 21 Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Service may be effectuated pursuant to the law of the forum state, 22 or in which service is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Nevada law permits service by publication 23 if the plaintiff cannot, after due diligence, locate the defendant. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.4(c)(1)(a). 24 Due diligence is that which is appropriate to accomplish actual notice and is reasonably calculated 25 to do so. See Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 749 (1999) (citing Parker v. Ross, 217 P.2d 373, 379 26 (Utah 1950)). Courts may consider the number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his 27 residence and other methods of locating the defendant, such as consulting public directories and 28 family members. See, e.g., Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d at 786-87; Abreu, 985 P.2d at 749; McNair v. 1} Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Nev. 1994). Service by publication is generally disfavored because substituted service implicates a defendant’s constitutional right to due process. See, e.g., Mullane 3} v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15; Trustees of the Nev. Resort Assoc.— Int’l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators v. Alumifax, 5] Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 106456, *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2013). 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated the requisite due diligence to effectuate 7|| service on Defendant David Hales by publication. The record details numerous previous 8|| unsuccessful attempts to locate Defendant Hales to effectuate service on him. See, e.g., Docket 9] Nos. 37, 38. In the instant motion, Plaintiff submits that she made multiple professional service 10] attempts to personally serve Defendant Hales at his last known residence in Las Vegas, Nevada, 11] which was found severely damaged by fire and visibly uninhabited. See Docket No. 53 at 2-5. 12] Plaintiff also contends that she attempted service at an address believed to be associated with 13|| Defendant Hales in Utah. See id. at 5. Further, Plaintiff asserts that she conducted comprehensive 14] skip-trace searches, attempted to contact previous counsel, investigated potential addresses across at least three states, and requested that counsel of corporate defendants provide Defendant Hales’ 16] last known contact information. See id. These circumstances suffice to allow service by 17|| publication at this juncture. 18] 1. CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motions to extend the time for service, and to 20|| serve Defendant David Hales by publication. Docket Nos. 53, 54. The time for effectuating 21|| service is extended to February 22, 2026. Plaintiff is permitted to serve Defendant David Hales by publication in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on a weekly basis for a period of four weeks. 23] Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Affidavit of Publication within one week of completing 24|| publication. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 5, 2026 Zo
28 United Stee acistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Marisol Levi v. Global Innovations Bank, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marisol-levi-v-global-innovations-bank-et-al-nvd-2026.