Reliford v. Brown

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Angela Reliford, Case No. 2:25-cv-01088-GMN-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Christopher M. Brown, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before this Court are six motions regarding service by pro se Plaintiff: (1) motion for 11 alternate service of Defendant Chris Brown (ECF No. 11); (2) motion to hear the motion for 12 alternate service on shortened time (ECF No. 64); (3) motion for leave to file supplemental 13 declarations in support of the motion for alternate service (ECF No. 69); (4) motion to extend the 14 time for service (ECF No. 29); (5) ex parte motion for service by the U.S. Marshals (ECF No. 15 72); and (6) ex parte motion to extend time for service (ECF No. 73). No responses were filed. 16 This Court discusses each of the motions below. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 A. Facts and Procedural History 19 This case stems from a 2024 viral social media post by famous singer/songwriter, Chris 20 Brown. Plaintiff, a self-proclaimed super fan, operated a fan account, @ChrisBrownzWife777, 21 that featured “dramatic monologues, faith-based content, and fictional performances.” ECF No. 1- 22 2 at 10. After attending a Chris Brown afterparty where she felt uncomfortable, Plaintiff posted a 23 video on her fan account. Id. She claims that this video was a performative “villain monologue” 24 modeled after the Joker. Chris Brown re-posted an edited version of the video, which included an 25 unrelated mugshot of Plaintiff, to his official Instagram account. Plaintiff alleges she was 26 harassed, misgendered, threatened, and humiliated as result of the viral post. 27 Plaintiff initiated legal action in state court against Chris Brown, Sony Music 1 defamation, slander, false light, invasion of privacy, libel, copyright infringement, intentional 2 infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Id. 3 Plaintiff served Defendant Sony in state court, and it removed the case to this district. ECF No. 1. 4 Plaintiff now moves to serve Defendant Chris Brown by alternate means, to extend the time for 5 service, and for various other service-related relief. ECF Nos. 11, 29, 64, 69, 72, 73. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion for shortened time (ECF No. 64) 8 Plaintiff asks this Court to hear her motion for alternate service on shortened time. ECF 9 No. 64. Local Rule IA 6-1(d) states that “motions to shorten time will be granted only upon an 10 attorney or party’s declaration describing the circumstances claimed to constitute good cause to 11 justify shortening of time.” Here, Plaintiff asks this Court to hear her motion on an expedited 12 basis so that she can serve Defendant Brown and the case can move forward. ECF No. 64. She 13 contends that Defendant Brown is evading service, which has prejudiced her. This Court finds 14 good cause to grant her request. 15 B. Motion for leave to file supplemental briefing (ECF No. 69) 16 Plaintiff requests leave to file supplemental declarations (ECF Nos. 63 and 65) in support 17 of her motion for alternate service. Under Local Rule 7-2(g), a “party may not file supplemental 18 pleadings, briefs, authorities, or evidence without leave of court granted for good cause.” Here, 19 Plaintiff seeks to provide additional evidence of her efforts to serve Defendant Brown. ECF No. 20 69.This Court finds good cause to grant the motion. It considers the supplemental declarations at 21 ECF Nos. 63 and 65 in tandem with the motion for alternate service below. 22 C. Motion for alternate service (ECF No. 11) 23 Plaintiff moves to serve Defendant Brown by publication or other appropriate method. 24 ECF No. 11. In her motion, Plaintiff explains that she has attempted service on Defendant Brown 25 in the United Kingdom, at his Las Vegas and California residences, and in Florida. Id. at 2–3; 26 ECF No. 63. She seeks alternate service or service by publication and cites Nevada Rule of Civil 27 Procedure (“NRCP”) 4.4(b)(1). While Plaintiff has detailed her many service attempts on 1 Accordingly, this Court denies her motion without prejudice. Plaintiff should carefully review the 2 applicable law before re-filing her motion. She should also strive to put all relevant information in 3 one motion instead of filing supplements. 4 D. Motion to extend the time for service (ECF No. 29) 5 Plaintiff seeks a 90-day extension of time to serve Defendant Brown. Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 4 provides that a plaintiff must serve a defendant “within 90 days after the 7 complaint is filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In removed cases, the 90-day period runs from the date 8 of removal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c); see also Whidbee v. Pierce Cnty., 857 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th 9 Cir. 2017) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern service of process in federal court, see 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, and apply to a civil action after removal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1).”); see 11 also Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1004 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The same [90-day] 12 period applies where suits are removed to federal court from state court, except that the period 13 commences upon the date of removal.”). Plaintiff’s current deadline to serve Defendant Brown is 14 September 16, 2025. See ECF No. 1 (removing case on June 18, 2025). 15 Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis to determine whether to extend the time for 16 service. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). At the first step, the Court “must” 17 extend the time for service “upon a showing of good cause.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 18 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). Generally, good cause is equated with diligence. Townsel v. Contra 19 Costa Cnty., Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987). At the second step, the Court “may” extend 20 the time for service “upon a showing of excusable neglect.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512. 21 Here, Plaintiff explains that she has hired professional process servers and private 22 investigators to locate and serve Defendant Brown, and that she has attempted to serve him 23 multiple times at his various residences. ECF No. 29. Because Plaintiff has diligently attempted to 24 serve Defendant Brown, this Court finds good cause and extends the time for service. Therefore, 25 it need not consider excusable neglect. Plaintiff will have until December 15, 2025, to serve 26 Defendant Brown. The ex parte motion to extend the time for service (ECF No. 73) is 27 subsequently denied as moot. ] E. Ex parte motion for service by U.S. Marshals (ECF No. 72) 2 Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for this Court to direct the U.S. Marshals to serve 3 || Defendant Brown. ECF No. 72. Under Local Rule IA 7-2(b), an “ex parte motion or application 4 || must articulate the rule that permits ex parte filing and explain why it is filed on an ex parte 5 || basis.” Plaintiff has neither articulated the rule that permits her to file ex parte nor explained why 6 || she filed the motion on this basis. Accordingly, this Court denies her motion without prejudice. 7 || II. CONCLUSION 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for shortened time (ECF No. 64), motion to file 9 || supplemental briefing (ECF No. 69), and motion to extend the time for service (ECF No. 29) are 10 || GRANTED. Plaintiff will have until December 15, 2025, to serve Defendant Brown. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for alternate service (ECF No. 11) 12 || and ex parte motion for service by the U.S. Marshal’s (ECF No. 72) are DENIED without 13 || prejudice. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's ex parte motion to extend time (ECF No. 15 || 73)is DENIED as moot. 16 17 DATED: August 27, 2025 18 19 Lig ola wc! Fao BRENDA WEKSLER , 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28