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

Nevada Supreme Court

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2015

Docket68573

StatusUnpublished

This text of McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.) (McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.