United States Liability Insurance Company v. Hediz, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00261
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

11 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. RANDALL TINDALL 22 Nevada Bar No. 6522 MATTHEW B. BECKSTEAD 33 Nevada Bar No. 14168 8945 West Russell Road, Suite 330 44 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 997-3800 55 Facsimile: (702) 997-3800 rtindall@rlattorneys.com 66 mbeckstead@rlattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, 77 United States Liability Ins. Co. 88 SACRO & WALKER, LLP 99 JENNIFER YU SACRO California Bar No. 208988 1100 (Pro hac vice) RICHARD D. BREMER 1111 California Bar No. 199019 (Pro hac vice) 1122 700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610 Glendale, CA 91203 1133 Telephone: (818) 721-9597 rbremer@sacrowalker.com 1144 jsacro@sacrowalker.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, 1155 United States Liability Ins. Co. 1166 1177 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1188 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1199 UNITED STATES LIABILITY CASE NO.: 3:25-cv-00261-ART-CLB 2200 INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska 2211 corporation, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE 2222 Plaintiff, OF PROCESS v. 2233 (First Request) 2244 HEDIZ, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; HECTOR DIAZ, an 2255 individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 2266 Defendants. 27 28 11 Plaintiff UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and 22 hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order extending the deadline to serve 33 process in this case by ninety days. 44 This motion is based upon the pleadings and other papers on file in this 55 action, the memorandum of points and authorities below, and any oral argument 66 this Honorable Court wishes to consider. 77 Dated this 18th day of August 2025. 88 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 99 /s/ Matthew B. Beckstead RANDALL TINDALL 1100 Nevada Bar No. 6522 MATTHEW B. BECKSTEAD 1111 Nevada Bar No. 14168 8945 West Russell Road, Suite 330 1122 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 997-3800 1133 Facsimile: (702) 997-3800 rtindall@rlattorneys.com 1144 mbeckstead@rlattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, 1155 United States Liability Ins. Co. 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 27 28 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. INTRODUCTION 33 Plaintiff moves this Court for an exercise of its broad discretion to allow 44 additional time for service of process under Rule 4(m). 55 Due to a miscommunication between California and Nevada counsel for 66 Plaintiff, each thought the other was handling the issuance of a summons and the 77 service of the complaint. It was only as the service deadline approached did counsel 88 realize that the complaint had not been sent out for service. 99 Additional time is also warranted because Defendants have been stonewalling 1100 Plaintiff for more than a year, failing to cooperate with Plaintiff’s investigation of the 1111 incident at issue in the underlying litigation.1 Plaintiff may need to seek leave to 1122 serve via publication should they be unable to personally serve Defendants. 1133 Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an extension of ninety days to serve process. 1144 II. LEGAL STANDARD 1155 Rule 4(m) authorizes a motion to extend the deadline to serve process upon a 1166 defendant, and it “also ‘requires a district court to grant an extension of time if good 1177 cause is shown and permits the district court to grant such an extension even absent 1188 good cause.’”2 “‘Good cause to avoid dismissal may be demonstrated by establishing, 1199 at a minimum, excusable neglect’ and may be supported by a further showing that 2200 [among other things] ‘the defendant would suffer no prejudice.’”3 District courts 2211 “‘have broad discretion to extend time for service’ and should ‘consider factors ‘like a 2222 statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and 2233 eventual service.’”4 2244 /// 2255 2266 1 See generally Complaint [ECF No. 1]. 2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Williams v. Bellagio Hotel & Casino, 728 F. Supp. 3d 1166, 1169-70 (D. Nev. Apr. 1, 2024) (quoting Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 27 Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662 (1996))). 3 Williams, 728 F. Supp. 3d at 1170 (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 n.3 (9th 28 Cir. 2009) (quoting Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 22 This Court is fully empowered to grant this motion to extend the Rule 4(m) 33 deadline to serve Defendants with process in this action because good cause exists to 44 do so. Furthermore, doing so would promote judicial efficiency. 55 Due to an unfortunate miscommunication between Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff 66 has not yet attempted to serve Defendants. As noted in the accompanying 77 declarations, each of USLI’s counsel believed that the other had taken the lead in 88 effecting service.5 Courts have broad discretion to extent the time period for service 99 under the discretionary component of Rule 4(m)6, and have specifically extended the 1100 Rule 4 deadline where the failure to timely serve a complaint is due to excusable 1111 neglect.7 In determining the existence of excusable neglect, courts utilize a four factor 1122 framework to guide their discretion: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 1133 (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the 1144 reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.8 1155 These factors weigh in favor of extending the time for service. There would be 1166 no prejudice to Defendants because this is a declaratory relief action relating to an 1177 ongoing underlying action. Should the Court dismiss this case without prejudice, 1188 Plaintiff could and would simply refile its complaint. Plaintiff submits that granting 1199 an extension to allow more time for service is also appropriate under Rule 4(m) and 2200 serves the policy interests set forth in Rule 1, which provides that the Federal Rules 2211 of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and 2222 the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action 2233 and proceeding.” Plaintiff’s ability to re-file its complaint following any dismissal 2244 without prejudice for failure to timely serve process shows that Defendants will not 2255 2266 5 See the Declarations of Matthew B. Beckstead and Richard D. Bremer filed concurrently herewith. 6 In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001). 27 7 See Feaker v. Trans Union, LLC, 2025 WL 1249135 (D. Nev. 2025); see also Rule 60(b) (allowing the court to relieve a party from an order due to excusable neglect). 28 8 Feaker v. Trans Union, LLC, supra, 2025 WL 1249135 at *1; see also Lemoge v. United States, supra, 1 || suffer any prejudice from an extended service deadline. For this same reason, th 2 || second factor is met, as it is in the interests of judicial economy to extend the time fo 3 || service rather than having Plaintiff initiate a new action. Furthermore, □□□□□□□□ 4 || acted in good faith, and the delay is the result of an honest mistake pursuant to whic 5 || each counsel believed that the complaint was in the process of being served. 6 Additionally, Defendants expect to be able to serve Defendants within th 7 |}extended deadline for service requested in this motion. Plaintiff expects t 8 ||be effectuate personal service upon each defendant or, alternatively, to sett th 9 || stage to serve process by publication if its diligent effort to locate and serve fails t 10 ||}result in personal service. Although Defendants have proven difficult to contact, 11 || Plaintiff fully expects to serve Defendants with process one way or another, 12 || favoring an extension of time to effectuate service. 13 IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of ninet

days to effectuate service of process via personal service or, alternatively, vi publication. 16 17 Dated this 18» day of August 2025. 18 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 19 /s/ Matthew B. Beckstead RANDALL TINDALL 20 Nevada Bar No. 6522 MATTHEW B. BECKSTEAD 21 Nevada Bar No. 14168 8945 West Russell Road, Suite 330 22 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 997-3800 23 Facsimile: (702) 997-3800 rtindall@rlattorneys.com 24 mbeckstead@rlattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, 25 United StatesLiability Ins. Co. 26 || ITIS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: August 19, 2025 27 98 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 See Complaint [ECF No. 1] at 9 13-22.