McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.)

Nevada Supreme Court

McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.)

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided September 11, 2015·No. 68573·Unpublished

Opinion

Attempts to serve petitioner at that address failed because the occupant denied he was petitioner or that petitioner lived there. Given these factual assertions, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 595-96, 245 P.3d 1198, 1200-01 (2010) (explaining that the good- cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion); Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000) (setting forth factors that the district court may consider in determining whether a plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for failure to serve a defendant with a summons and complaint within NRCP 4(0's 120-day prescriptive period). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

t tatic-CiT J. Parraguirre 1/4)

D OLIJ21 Douglas AS J.

Chut. Cherry

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Upson Smith/Las Vegas Dotson & Qualey Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

Attempts to serve petitioner at that address failed because the occupant denied he was petitioner or that petitioner lived there. Given these factual assertions, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 595-96, 245 P.3d 1198, 1200-01 (2010) (explaining that the good- cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion); Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000) (setting forth factors that the district court may consider in determining whether a plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for failure to serve a defendant with a summons and complaint within NRCP 4(0's 120-day prescriptive period). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

t tatic-CiT J. Parraguirre 1/4)

D OLIJ21 Douglas AS J.

Chut. Cherry

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Upson Smith/Las Vegas Dotson & Qualey Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.) (McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related