2 4 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 | VICTOR CAMARGO JUAREZ, an Individual, { Case No.: 3:21-cv-00064-ART-CSD Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING 1 STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION v. TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST WGS GROUP, INC. 13 || WGS GROUP, INC., 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 This Stipulation and Joint Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Against WGS Group, Inc. 17 || is made by and between Plaintiff Victor Camargo Juarez and Defendant, WGS Group, Inc. 18 || CWGS”) (collectively the “Parties”), by and through its undersigned counsel of record. 19 RECITALS 20 Whereas, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 21 1. On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Victor Camargo Juarez filed a Complaint alleging 22 || employment discrimination under Tithe VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the 23 || Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (ECF No. 1). 24 2. On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 25 || No. 6). The Court granted the application on August 6, 2021, and directed Plaintiff to provide the 26 {| U.S. Marshal with a summons and complaint for service. (ECF No. 8). The Court issued a 27 || Summons on August 9, 2021. (ECF No. 10). 28 ROTHSCHILD LLP
] 3. The U.S. Marshal served the summons and complaint on a woman named “Charlene 2 || Fowler” on August 27, 2021, at “WGS Group Inc, 8238 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 3 |) 89117.” as directed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). 4 4, Charlene Fowler was not a registered agent for WGS; she was not a corporate officer 5 || of WGS; and she was not designated to receive service of process for WGS. The person designated 6 | by law to accept service for WGS was Charles Allaway from July 27, 2019, to May 31, 2022, 7 || according to the Nevada Secretary of State. See Business Information, WGS GROUP INC., 8 j| Secretary of State Website, attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Allaway comprised the entirety of the Board 9 || of Directors for WGS during that time. /d. Additionally, the proper place of service for WGS and □□ 10 |) Mr. Allaway at that time was 1930 Village Center Circle, Suite 3-174, Las Vegas, NV, 89134, as || indicated on the Nevada Secretary of State website-—-not at the address Plaintiff supplied to the || U.S. Marshall. /d. 13 5. On May 31, 2022, the WGS Board of Directors changed to Michael Manahan and 14 || Marcus Skeen. /d. The place designated for service remained 1930 Village Center Circie, Suite 3- 15 | 174, Las Vegas, NV, 89134. Id. 16 6. On October 3, 2024, Michael Manahan became the sole WGS board member. □□□ 17 | The place designated for service remained 1930 Village Center Circle, Suite 3-174, Las □□□□□□ 18 || NV, 89134, Id. 19 7. On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Default Request for Entry of Default Against 20 | Defendant WGS Group, Inc. with the Court Clerk. (ECF No. 20). The Court Clerk entered the 21 || default on February 27, 2023. (ECF No. 21). 22 8. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 23 || Against Defendant WGS Group, Inc. (ECF No. 26). The Default Judgment was entered by the 24 |) Court Clerk on December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 27). 25 9. Subsequently, WGS learned of this lawsuit and the parties have come to a mutual 26 |, resolution. The parties now wish to vacate the default judgment and then enter a Joint Stipulation 27 {{ and Order to Dismiss this lawsuit. 28 CLP 2.
1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 A judgment is void when service of process is insufficient. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 || 4(h)(1)(B) provides that service upon a corporation, partnership, or association may be effectuated, 4 || “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general 5 || agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and— 6 || if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-—by also mailing a copy of each 7 |) to the defendant...” The Nevada rule for serving an individual or corporation within Nevada mirrors 8 || the Federal Rule. NRCP 4.2(a). 9 “A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has 10 || been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th 11 Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). A defendant not properly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 may assert 12 || the defense of insufficient service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). While “Rule 4 is a 13 |] flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the 14 |} complaint,” the serving party must substantially comply with the Rule. Crowley, 734 F.3d at 975 15 || (quotation omitted). 16 Although a defendant’s appearance to attack sufficiency of service is an admission that 17 || defendant has actual knowledge of the lawsuit, actual knowledge does not substitute for proper 18 || service of process. Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 19 | L.Ed.2d 415 (1987) (“before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must 20 || be more than notice to the defendant and a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the 21 || defendant and the forum”); Worrell v. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841 (9th Cir. 1989) (service 22 | fails unless defendant returns acknowledgment form); Accord Grand Entm't Group, Lid. v. Star 23 || Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 492 (Gd Cir.1993) (“Notice to a defendant that he has been sued 24 || does not cure defective service, and an appearance for the limited purpose of objecting to service 25 || does not waive the technicalities of the rule”). The serving plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 26 that a challenged service was valid. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 On a “motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 28 || final judgment, order, or proceeding,” because the judgment is void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(4). ROTHSCHILD LLP
1 | Motions to set aside a judgment as void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) may be brought at any time. 2 || Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir, 1987). 3 Further, the Court may dismiss a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficient 4 | service of process. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), the Court must dismiss an action without prejudice 5 || ifa defendant ts not served within 90 days of the filing of the complaint. 6 Service on WGS was defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)0B). The U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 4 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 | VICTOR CAMARGO JUAREZ, an Individual, { Case No.: 3:21-cv-00064-ART-CSD Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING 1 STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION v. TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST WGS GROUP, INC. 13 || WGS GROUP, INC., 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 This Stipulation and Joint Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Against WGS Group, Inc. 17 || is made by and between Plaintiff Victor Camargo Juarez and Defendant, WGS Group, Inc. 18 || CWGS”) (collectively the “Parties”), by and through its undersigned counsel of record. 19 RECITALS 20 Whereas, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 21 1. On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Victor Camargo Juarez filed a Complaint alleging 22 || employment discrimination under Tithe VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the 23 || Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (ECF No. 1). 24 2. On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 25 || No. 6). The Court granted the application on August 6, 2021, and directed Plaintiff to provide the 26 {| U.S. Marshal with a summons and complaint for service. (ECF No. 8). The Court issued a 27 || Summons on August 9, 2021. (ECF No. 10). 28 ROTHSCHILD LLP
] 3. The U.S. Marshal served the summons and complaint on a woman named “Charlene 2 || Fowler” on August 27, 2021, at “WGS Group Inc, 8238 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 3 |) 89117.” as directed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). 4 4, Charlene Fowler was not a registered agent for WGS; she was not a corporate officer 5 || of WGS; and she was not designated to receive service of process for WGS. The person designated 6 | by law to accept service for WGS was Charles Allaway from July 27, 2019, to May 31, 2022, 7 || according to the Nevada Secretary of State. See Business Information, WGS GROUP INC., 8 j| Secretary of State Website, attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Allaway comprised the entirety of the Board 9 || of Directors for WGS during that time. /d. Additionally, the proper place of service for WGS and □□ 10 |) Mr. Allaway at that time was 1930 Village Center Circle, Suite 3-174, Las Vegas, NV, 89134, as || indicated on the Nevada Secretary of State website-—-not at the address Plaintiff supplied to the || U.S. Marshall. /d. 13 5. On May 31, 2022, the WGS Board of Directors changed to Michael Manahan and 14 || Marcus Skeen. /d. The place designated for service remained 1930 Village Center Circie, Suite 3- 15 | 174, Las Vegas, NV, 89134. Id. 16 6. On October 3, 2024, Michael Manahan became the sole WGS board member. □□□ 17 | The place designated for service remained 1930 Village Center Circle, Suite 3-174, Las □□□□□□ 18 || NV, 89134, Id. 19 7. On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Default Request for Entry of Default Against 20 | Defendant WGS Group, Inc. with the Court Clerk. (ECF No. 20). The Court Clerk entered the 21 || default on February 27, 2023. (ECF No. 21). 22 8. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 23 || Against Defendant WGS Group, Inc. (ECF No. 26). The Default Judgment was entered by the 24 |) Court Clerk on December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 27). 25 9. Subsequently, WGS learned of this lawsuit and the parties have come to a mutual 26 |, resolution. The parties now wish to vacate the default judgment and then enter a Joint Stipulation 27 {{ and Order to Dismiss this lawsuit. 28 CLP 2.
1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 A judgment is void when service of process is insufficient. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 || 4(h)(1)(B) provides that service upon a corporation, partnership, or association may be effectuated, 4 || “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general 5 || agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and— 6 || if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-—by also mailing a copy of each 7 |) to the defendant...” The Nevada rule for serving an individual or corporation within Nevada mirrors 8 || the Federal Rule. NRCP 4.2(a). 9 “A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has 10 || been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th 11 Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). A defendant not properly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 may assert 12 || the defense of insufficient service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). While “Rule 4 is a 13 |] flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the 14 |} complaint,” the serving party must substantially comply with the Rule. Crowley, 734 F.3d at 975 15 || (quotation omitted). 16 Although a defendant’s appearance to attack sufficiency of service is an admission that 17 || defendant has actual knowledge of the lawsuit, actual knowledge does not substitute for proper 18 || service of process. Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 19 | L.Ed.2d 415 (1987) (“before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must 20 || be more than notice to the defendant and a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the 21 || defendant and the forum”); Worrell v. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841 (9th Cir. 1989) (service 22 | fails unless defendant returns acknowledgment form); Accord Grand Entm't Group, Lid. v. Star 23 || Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 492 (Gd Cir.1993) (“Notice to a defendant that he has been sued 24 || does not cure defective service, and an appearance for the limited purpose of objecting to service 25 || does not waive the technicalities of the rule”). The serving plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 26 that a challenged service was valid. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 On a “motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 28 || final judgment, order, or proceeding,” because the judgment is void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(4). ROTHSCHILD LLP
1 | Motions to set aside a judgment as void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) may be brought at any time. 2 || Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir, 1987). 3 Further, the Court may dismiss a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficient 4 | service of process. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), the Court must dismiss an action without prejudice 5 || ifa defendant ts not served within 90 days of the filing of the complaint. 6 Service on WGS was defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)0B). The U.S. Marshail 7 | delivered the summons and complaint to Charlene Fowler, who was neither an officer, a managing 8 | or general agent, nor an agent authorized by appointment or law to accept service for WGS. Charles 9 || Allaway was WGS’s Non-Commercial Registered Agent during the relevant period. Additionally, 10 | Plaintiff directed the U.S. Marshall to serve his Complaint at “WGS Group Inc, 8238 W. Charleston 11 || Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89117,” and that is where the U.S. Marshall seemingly served the Complaint. 12 || However, the address for proper service at that time was 1930 Village Center Circle, Suite 3-174, 13 || Las Vegas, NV, 89134, as indicated on the Nevada Secretary of State website. 14 Because service was not made on an authorized agent or officer, it did not comply with Fed. 13 || R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B) or its Nevada analogue. In the absence of proper service, the Court lacks 16 || personal jurisdiction over WGS, rendering the entry of default and default judgment void. See 17 || Crowley, 734 F.3d at 974-75; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). /// i9 20 | ///
22 | □□□ 23 f/f 24 | 25 1 fff 26 /// 27 aft? 28 Hs is ROTHSCHILD LP 4,
1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, WGS respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Default 3 || Judgment entered against it and dismiss this action without prejudice for insufficient service of 4 || process. 6 DATED: December U \ , 2025. DATED: December 22, 2025. 7 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1° By<_ By-/s/ Jessica E. Brown VICTOR-CAMARGO JUAREZ DEANNA L. FORBUSH 11 Plaintiff REX D. GARNER JESSICA E. BROWN 12 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 700 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 13 Counsel for Defendant 14 ORDER 15 The parties stipulation and joint motion to set aside the Default Judgment against WGS Group, Inc. and to dismiss this action without 16 prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (ECF No. 28) is granted. Accordingly, the 17 || Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 Ap ' jlosect □□ 19 Anne R. Traum United States District Judge 20 DATED: December 29, 2025
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROTHSCHILD LLP 5.