Sonia Esparza v. LVMPD, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 10, 2026
Docket2:23-cv-02161
StatusUnknown

This text of Sonia Esparza v. LVMPD, et al. (Sonia Esparza v. LVMPD, 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.

Bluebook
Sonia Esparza v. LVMPD, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Sonia Esparza, 2:23-cv-02161-GMN-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE (ECF No. 5 vs. 115) 6 LVMPD, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time for Service. (“Motion”). ECF No. 115. The Court 9 GRANTS the Motion. The Court grants the request for additional time and will allow plaintiff until 10 August 3, 2026 to serve defendants Fucile, Anderson, Williamson, Ryan, Medrano, Shah, Casey, 11 Poland, Clark, Salviejo, Biloskurska, and Anapolsky. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service within the United States pursuant to 14 the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., FRCP 15 4(e)(1). Rule 4 states that “the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served 16 within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)[.] The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service 17 within the United States and authorize extensions of time for good cause. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 4(m). 19 There are several factors courts consider in evaluating a party's due diligence, including the 20 number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating 21 defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. See Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 22 100, 102-104, 787 P.2d 785, 786-787 (Nev. 1990). Regarding extensions, “a district court may 23 consider factors ‘like statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, 24 25 1 and eventual service.’” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Troxell v. 2 Fedders of N. Am. Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). 3 II. ANALYSIS 4 Plaintiff seeks additional time to serve specified defendants. ECF No. 115. Plaintiff requests an 5 extension based on the circumstances following Wellpath’s bankruptcy. Id. at 2. Plaintiff argues that 6 Wellpath’s counsel has shifted positions regarding discovery and acceptance of service. Id. Plaintiff 7 argues that she has been diligent in attempting to locate and serve the individual defendants. Id. at 3. 8 Plaintiff identifies which defendants have been served, and which remain unserved. Id. Regarding the 9 unserved defendants, plaintiff’s counsel declares that her process servers have identified a likely home 10 address for defendants Fucile and Anderson and have made five attempts to affect service at that 11 location. ECF No. 115-1 at 2, at ¶ 6. Counsel also declares that defendants Casey, Clark, Salviejo, 12 Biloskurska, and Anapolsky have home addresses in Nevada but were not present when the 13 process servers attempted to affect service at those addresses. Id. at ¶ 8. Defendants 14 Williamson, Ryan, Medrano, Shah, and Poland have home addresses in California, Colorado, and New 15 Mexico. Id. Counsel is currently working with process servers to identify new addresses for the 16 Nevada-based defendants and arrange service of the out-of-state defendants. Id. 17 Plaintiff filed this case in 2023, but this case has been complicated by Wellpath’s bankruptcy, 18 and the defendants will likely not be prejudiced by an additional extension here. Defendants may have 19 actual notice of the suit and plaintiff may be able to eventually serve the defendants. The Court has 20 broad discretion to permit an extension under Rule 4 and grants plaintiff such extension. The plaintiff 21 has shown good cause for an extension. 22 ACCORDINGLY, 23 IT IS ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service (ECF No. 115) is GRANTED. 25 2. Plaintiff has until August 3, 2026 to serve defendant Fucile, Anderson, Williamson, Ryan,

5 Medrano, Shah, Casey, Poland, Clark, Salviejo, Biloskurska, and Anapolsky. 3 DATED: June 10, 2026. if IT IS SO ORDERED. fo Of 5 fs af 6 3 □□ ff illier I 7 United States Mf ‘strate Judg 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

Related

Price v. Dunn
787 P.2d 785 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)
Craigo v. Circus-Circus Enterprises, Inc.
786 P.2d 22 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)
Efaw v. Williams
473 F.3d 1038 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sonia Esparza v. LVMPD, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonia-esparza-v-lvmpd-et-al-nvd-2026.