1 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6228 NICHOLAS F. PSYK, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 15983

6605 Grand Montecito Parkway, Suite 200 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89149 5 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9

10 CLAUDIA SAMPEDRO, DENISE MILANI Case No. 2:22-cv-00296-RFB-BNW 11 a/k/a DENISE TRLICA, JESSICA HINTON

12 a/k/a JESSA HINTON, PAOLA CANAS, ROSIE WICKS a/k/a ROSIE JONES, and 13 PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR SANDRA VALENCIA, ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SERVE 14 DEFENDANT (SECOND REQUEST) Plaintiffs, 15 vs.

16 CAWACHA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a

17 MANGO TANGO NIGHTCLUB,

18 Defendant.

19

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs CLAUDIA SAMPEDRO, DENISE MILANI a/k/a DENISE 20

21 TRLICA, JESSICA HINTON a/k/a JESSA HINTON, PAOLA CANAS, ROSIE WICKS a/k/a

22 ROSIE JONES, and SANDRA VALENCIA (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel,

23 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS, hereby moves this Court for an Order extending the time to

24 serve process on Defendant CAWACHA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a MANGO TANGO 25 NIGHTCLUB (“Defendant”). This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and 26 Authorities, the declaration of Counsel in support (attached as “Exhibit A”), and the papers and 27 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 Plaintiffs seek an extension of the time to personally serve Defendant. Rule 4(m) of the

4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the summons and complaint shall be served upon the 5 defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. Consequently, service of the February 16, 2022 6 Complaint in this case was to be made before May 17, 2022. After initial attempts at service were 7

unsuccessful, Plaintiffs moved to enlarge the time to serve Defendant by an additional 90 days. See 8

9 ECF 7. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, making the new deadline to serve Defendant September

10 19, 2022. See ECF 9.

11 Rule 4(m) allows the Court to enlarge the time for service when the plaintiff shows good

12 cause why such service was not made within 90 days. 13 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that: 14 “Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court 15 must extend time for service upon a showing of good cause. The second is

16 discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect. Exercise of discretion to extend time to 17 complete service is appropriate when, for example, a statute-of-limitations bar would operate to prevent re-filing of the action.” 18 Crowley v. Bannister,

(9th Cir. 2013) (citing Lemoge v. United States, 19

20

(9th Cir. 2009). Generally, "good cause" exists where the plaintiff has been

21 diligent in his effort to effect service or there are other mitigating circumstances. Worthen v.

22 Aftermath, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00344-RLH-CWH,

, at *11 (D. Nev.

23 Oct. 31, 2011).

24 Here, there is good cause as well as other mitigating circumstances for why Plaintiffs have 25 not served Defendant within the initial, as well as the supplemental, 90-day time period. Plaintiffs 26

have made, and continue to make attempts to properly serve Defendant, but attempts made so far 27 attempts to effectuate service on the registered agent for Defendant, Jose David Aguilar-Medina, at 2 || his home address. See ECF [5]. When these attempts were unsuccessful, Plaintiffs ordered a skip trace to attempt to determine other avenues to serve Defendant, as outlined in the Declaration of Due Diligence filed with the Court. See ECF [6]. Plaintiffs continue to diligently seek other avenues to 6 attempt to effectuate service on Defendant, including conducting surveillance on the registered agent 7 || for Defendant due to prior unsuccessful attempts at service. See Exhibit A. In addition, counsel for 8 || the Plaintiffs has experienced attorney turnover that has resulted in unforeseen delays in effectuating || service on Defendant. See

10 Given that Plaintiffs have been and continue to make diligent efforts to properly serve 11 Defendant, good cause exists to justify an extension of time to serve the Complaint by an additional 12 90 days. 13

3 II. CONCLUSION

2 2 2415 Based upon the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order Granting

as || Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Enlargement of Time to Serve Defendant. A proposed order is B BS 45 attached as “Exhibit B.” 18 19 DATED this 19" day of September 2022.

30 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS

21 ORDER /s/ Kurt R. Bonds 22 Nevada Bar #6228 DATED: 4:49 pm, September 20, 2022 pmeepiemer NICHOLAS F. PSYK, ESQ. ru Nevada Bar No. 15983 Les WOE eA, . 6605 Grand Montecito Parkway 24 BRENDA WEKSLER Suite 200 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ulte 25 Las Vegas, Nevada 89149 (702) 384-7000 26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 27 28 N:\CLIENTS(\27600\27609\pleading\Motion for Enlargement of Time to Serve Defendant (Second Request).doc 3 KB/27609