1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Duffy Archive Limited, Case No. 2:22-cv-00747-JCM-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Signari Gallery LLC, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff Duffy Archive Limited’s motion to extend the time for 12 service and to serve Defendant Signari Gallery LLC by publication. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff 13 asserts that it has attempted to serve both Defendant’s registered agent and managing member but 14 has been unsuccessful with both. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good 15 cause to extend the time for service and has demonstrated that it cannot effectuate service through 16 Defendant’s registered agent or managing member, it grants the motion. 17 A. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to serve via the Nevada Secretary of State. 18 Service is to be provided under the law of the forum state, or in which service is 19 made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(c)(1)(A), a Nevada 20 entity or association may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to: (1) the 21 registered agent of the entity or association; or (2) any managing or general agent of any entity or 22 association. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(c)(1)(A)(1)(i) and (ix). If a plaintiff is unable to effectuate 23 service upon a business entity or association under Rule 4.2(c)(1), Rule 4.2(c)(3) allows for 24 service on a defendant by way of the Secretary of State. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(c)(3). 25 Here, Plaintiff asserts that it attempted service on Defendant’s registered agent on five 26 separate occasions, but each time found that the business was locked. (ECF No. 6 at 2). Plaintiff 27 then attempted service on the owner and managing member of Defendant on five occasions. 1 process server heard activity at the house but noted that it appeared the occupants were evading 2 service. (ECF No. 6-4). Given these circumstances, the Court finds good cause exists for 3 Plaintiff to serve Defendant by way of the Secretary of State. 4 B. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to extend time for service. 5 Courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). Efaw v.

F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003). The 90–day period for service contained in Rule 7 4(m) “operates not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance.” 8 Henderson v. United States,

(1996). “On its face, Rule 4(m) does not tie the 9 hands of the district court after the . . . [90]–day period has expired. Rather, Rule 4(m) explicitly 10 permits a district court to grant an extension of time to serve the complaint after that . . .[90]–day 11 period.” Mann v. American Airlines,

(9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the 12 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m) state that the rule “explicitly provides that the court shall 13 allow additional time if there is good cause for the plaintiff’s failure to effect service in the 14 prescribed . . .[90] days, and authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an 15 application of [Rule 4(m)] even if there is no good cause shown.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 16 Advisory Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments. Generally, “good cause” is equated with 17 diligence. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1337. 18 Plaintiff has also established that an extension of time is warranted. Despite diligent 19 attempts to serve Defendant, Plaintiff still has been unable to accomplish service. Because the 20 service deadline has recently passed, an extension is appropriate to give Plaintiff the time to 21 attempt service on Defendant. The Court thus grants Plaintiff’s motion regarding its request to 22 extend time for service. 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendant via the 25 Nevada Secretary of State and extend the time for service (ECF No. 6) is granted. Plaintiff shall 26 have until September 9, 2022 to effectuate service. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of process on Defendant via the Nevada 1 also mail a copy of the summons and complaint to Brian E. Eick at the address Plaintiff last 2 attempted service in compliance with Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(c)(3)(C). 3 4 DATED: August 10, 2022 5 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27