Moises Tolentino Ferrel, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00324
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Moises Tolentino Ferrel, et al., 2:26-cv-00324-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 5 vs. 6 The Hertz Corporation, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (“Motion to Amend”). ECF No. 20. 9 Since the Court GRANTS the Motion, the Court DENIES the pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 10 6 and 13) as MOOT. The Court also GRANTS the plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 21). 11 I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 20) 12 A. Legal Standard 13 14 "[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the 15 court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a 16 motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of 17 amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." Johnson v. Buckley, 18 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 19 B. Analysis 20 This is a personal injury case. Plaintiffs request leave to amend to correct defendant 21 Guagzhou’s name and make minor corrections. ECF No. 20. Plaintiffs attached the proposed amended 22 complaint to the Motion to Amend. Defendants file a limited opposition stating they do not oppose 23 amendment to correct the name, but they argue that the amendment should be limited to that 24 25 1 correction. ECF No. 23. Plaintiffs argue in the reply that the amendment is limited because the 2 corrections are minor and not substantive. ECF No. 25. 3 The Court grants the Motion to Amend, it is early in the case so there is no bad faith or undue 4 delay. The defendants will not be prejudiced because plaintiff’s amendments are not substantive and 5 futility is not an issue here. The Court thus grants the Motion to Amend. 6 II. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME (ECF No. 21) 7 A. Legal Standard 8 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within the United States pursuant to 9 the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., FRCP 10 4(e)(1). Rule 4 states that “the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served 11 within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)[.] The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service 12 within the United States and authorize extensions of time for good cause. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 4(m). 14 “District courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m).” Efaw v. 15 Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). There are several factors courts consider in evaluating 16 a party's due diligence, including the number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence 17 and other methods of locating defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. 18 See Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 100, 102-104, 787 P.2d 785, 786-787 (Nev. 1990). Regarding 19 extensions, “a district court may consider factors ‘like statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the 20 defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.’” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041 (quoting Troxell 21 v. Fedders of N. Am. Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). 22 B. Analysis 23 Defendant has appeared through counsel and argues that service has been improper. While 24 defendants also argue that plaintiffs’ request for extension is untimely, the Court finds that an 25 1 || extension is warranted here. Plaintiffs have made sufficient showing of good faith, diligent efforts to 2 || locate and serve the non-resident defendant Luxin Su Guagzhou through the Nevada Department of 3 || Motor Vehicles and by mailing process to the address listed in the police report. ECF No. 20 at 2 - 4. 4 || Moreover, the length of any delay is relatively inconsequential (cf. Efaw (7-year delay in service 5 || militated against extension)) and insufficient to support the heavy relief of dismissing the claims 6 || against Guagzhou requested by defendants (see In re Gilman, 887 F.3d 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2018)(courts 7 || “prefer to resolve cases on the merits,”)). 8 In sum, the Court finds that a brief extension will not cause undue prejudice so that plaintiff 9 ||can make additional attempts to serve the defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 || Procedure. Plaintiffs have shown good cause to extend the time to complete service. 11 IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. 8 2. Plaintiff MUST file the amended complaint on the docket within one week of this order. 3. The defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 6 and 13) are DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. ° 5. Plaintiff has until July 31, 2026, to serve the defendant.

DATED: June 23, 2026. / “Le

22 23 24 25