Whittemore v. Anderson Financial Services, LLC

D. Nevada

Whittemore v. Anderson Financial Services, LLC

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 24, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-01951·Unknown

Opinion

3 * * *

4 KATELYN WHITTEMORE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01951-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Service of Process upon Defendant 11 Michael Bowman. ECF No. 77. No response to Plaintiff’s Motion was filed. This allows the Court 12 to grant Plaintiff’s Motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d) (the “failure of an opposing party to file 13 points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a 14 motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”). 15 Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states that if a plaintiff shows “good cause” for the failure to 16 serve a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed, “the court must extend the time for 17 service for an appropriate period.” Generally, good cause is demonstrated “where a plaintiff has 18 shown diligent efforts to effect service.” Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Case No. 2:13-cv-01154- 19 APG-CWH, 2015 WL 427835, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015). Courts enjoy substantial discretion to 20 enlarge the time for service “even if there is no good cause shown.” Henderson v. U.S., 517 U.S. 21 654, 662 (1996) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 22 Here, Plaintiff explains that she has diligently “performed background searches” on 23 Defendant Bowman, but has been unable to locate him. More specifically, “Plaintiff attempted to 24 locate [Bowman] through the local telephone company, real and personal property, voter’s 25 registration and nationwide social security number database, and no current information was found.” 26 ECF No. 77 at 4 (internal citation omitted). Based on the above, Plaintiff requests an additional 60 27 days to effect service of process on Defendant Bowman. Id. at 3. 1 Accordingly, and with good cause shown, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Service of Process 3 (id.) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up until and through April 26, 2021 to 5 effect service of process upon Defendant Michael Bowman. 6 DATED THIS 24th day of February, 2021. 7

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

3 * * *

4 KATELYN WHITTEMORE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01951-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Service of Process upon Defendant 11 Michael Bowman. ECF No. 77. No response to Plaintiff’s Motion was filed. This allows the Court 12 to grant Plaintiff’s Motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d) (the “failure of an opposing party to file 13 points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a 14 motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”). 15 Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states that if a plaintiff shows “good cause” for the failure to 16 serve a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed, “the court must extend the time for 17 service for an appropriate period.” Generally, good cause is demonstrated “where a plaintiff has 18 shown diligent efforts to effect service.” Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Case No. 2:13-cv-01154- 19 APG-CWH, 2015 WL 427835, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015). Courts enjoy substantial discretion to 20 enlarge the time for service “even if there is no good cause shown.” Henderson v. U.S., 517 U.S. 21 654, 662 (1996) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 22 Here, Plaintiff explains that she has diligently “performed background searches” on 23 Defendant Bowman, but has been unable to locate him. More specifically, “Plaintiff attempted to 24 locate [Bowman] through the local telephone company, real and personal property, voter’s 25 registration and nationwide social security number database, and no current information was found.” 26 ECF No. 77 at 4 (internal citation omitted). Based on the above, Plaintiff requests an additional 60 27 days to effect service of process on Defendant Bowman. Id. at 3. 1 Accordingly, and with good cause shown, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Service of Process 3 (id.) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up until and through April 26, 2021 to 5 effect service of process upon Defendant Michael Bowman. 6 DATED THIS 24th day of February, 2021. 7

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Whittemore v. Anderson Financial Services, LLC, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

Whittemore v. Anderson Financial Services, LLC (Whittemore v. Anderson Financial Services, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related