Opinion
Case No.: 2:20-cv-01298-APG-NJK
11-02-2020
GREEN MEDICAL MARKETING LLC, Plaintiff(s), v. MICHAEL A. SNAVELY, Defendant(s).
Order
[Docket Nos. 7-8]
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions to extend the time to serve Defendant and to approve service as outlined in N.R.S. 14.090. Docket Nos. 7-8. No response has been filed. The motions are properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to extend time is GRANTED and the motion for alternative service is DENIED without prejudice.
I. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE
Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an appropriate period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The motion establishes sufficient cause to extend the time for effectuating service by 60 days from the issuance of this order.
II. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Plaintiff next seeks an order that it be allowed to effectuate service in accordance with a state law provision regarding service at a residence accessible only by a gate. Docket No. 8 at 4-5. This motion will be denied without prejudice.
First, no legal authority has been presented providing standards or guidance as to when a federal court may direct service be conducted in Plaintiff's desired manner. Instead, the motion provides a block quotation of the federal rule that state law governs service and then provides a block quotation of the state law provision for service in gated communities. Id. What is missing is meaningful discussion explaining why it would be proper in this case for the Court to order that service may be effectuated in the manner described. Absent such meaningful discussion, the Court declines to reach the issue. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013).
Second, it appears the motion may be premature. Plaintiff's counsel attests that he emailed Defendant's attorney about accepting service electronically a few days prior to filing the instant motion. See Docket No. 8-1 at ¶ 8. There is a strong preference for waiver of service, accompanied by consequences for a defendant's failure—without good cause—to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). It does not appear that Plaintiff's efforts at obtaining a waiver have run their course.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to extend time is GRANTED and the motion for alternative service is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 2, 2020
/s/_________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge