1 Christopher M. Humes Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 2 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 3 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614 4 Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 5 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No.: 2:24-cv-01812-RFB-EJY 12 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 13 TRUST; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND 14 LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 15 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS VACATION TRUST; and THE ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 16 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SOUTHERN NEVADA LABORERS SERVICE OF PROCESS AND 17 LOCAL 872 TRAINING TRUST, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE PROCESS 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 SUNDAY RIVER CORP., a Nevada corporation, 21 Defendant. 22 23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative Service of Process and 25 Motion to Extend Time to Serve Process (the “Motion”). Being fully advised, and good cause 26 appearing the Court finds and orders as follows: 27 28 1 2 THE COURT FINDS AND CONCLUDES that Plaintiffs have diligently attempted to 3 serve Sunday River Corp. (“Sunday River”) to no avail. The Trust Funds have attempted to serve 4 Sunday River at three different known addresses, multiple times. Sunday River and its registered 5 agents, officers, and directors, appear to be actively evading service, making personal service 6 impracticable. 7 THE COURT FURTHER FINDS AND CONCLUDES that given the impracticability 8 of personally serving Sunday River, alternative service is proper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 4(e)(1) authorizes service of process as “prescribed in a state statute or rule.” Omni Capital Int’l, 10 Ltd. v. Ruldolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.,

(1987). Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 11 4.2(c)(1)(A) provides for two methods of service for a corporation formed under the laws of the 12 State of Nevada: (1) a plaintiff may serve the Nevada corporation’s registered agent; or (2) a 13 plaintiff may serve “any officer or director of [the Nevada] corporation.” If service cannot be 14 effectuated through an officer or director of the corporation, or through the registered agent, then, 15 with court approval, plaintiffs may serve the “Nevada Secretary of State in the entity’s . . . stead.” 16 Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(c)(3); see also DLJ Mortg. Cap., Inc. v. Old Republic Title Ins. Grp., Inc., No. 17 2:20-cv-01662-KJD-VCF,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2021) (“Rule 4.2(c)(3) 18 allows for service upon the defendant by way of the Secretary of State.”). To be allowed to serve 19 the Nevada Secretary State in the stead of a corporate defendant, plaintiffs must file an affidavit 20 that “(1) sets forth facts demonstrating Plaintiff’s good faith attempts to locate and serve the 21 entity; (2) explains the reasons why service could not be made; and (3) states the last-known 22 address of the entity or its agents.” Fisher v. TheVegasPackage.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01613- 23 JAD-VCF,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2019) (citing Nev. R. Civ. P. 24 4.2(c)(3)(A)(i)-(iii)). 25 In this case, as mentioned above, Plaintiffs have shown that they diligently attempted to 26 locate and serve Sunday River both through its registered agent and through its officers and 27 directors. Plaintiffs have also provided a declaration that: (1) sets forth sufficient facts that 28 demonstrate their good faith attempts to locate and serve Sunday River; (2) explains why service 1 on Sunday River’s registered agents, officers, and directors could not be made; and (3) states the 2 last known address of Sunday River and its registered agents, officers, and directors. Accordingly, 3 alternative service on Sunday River through the Nevada Secretary of State is proper. 4 THE COURT FURTHER FINDS AND CONCLUDES that good cause exists to extend 5 the time to service, given the impracticability of personally serving Sunday River. Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “if a plaintiff shows ‘good cause’ for the failure to serve a 7 defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed, ‘the court must extend the time for service 8 for an appropriate period.’” Signature Surgery Ctr. LLC v. Cel Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 2:21-cv- 9 00215-JCM-EJY,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 5, 2022). Good cause to extend time to 10 sever process exists “where a plaintiff has shown diligent efforts to effect service.”

(emphasis 11 added) (quoting Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Case No. 2:13-cv-01154-APG-CWH,

427835, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015)). Diligent efforts to effectuate service include, but are not 13 limited to, hiring a process server to locate the defendants, searching the public records to locate 14 the defendants, and utilizing attorneys and staff to locate the defendants. See, e.g., Hunter v. Nat’l 15 Relocation Van Lines, No. 2:18-cv-00252-RFB-CWH,

, at *2 (D. Nev. July 31, 16 2018). As explained above, Plaintiffs have diligently attempted to locate and serve Sunday River 17 and its registered agents, officers and directors, by hiring a process server, searching public 18 records, and utilizing attorneys and staff. Accordingly, extension of time to serve Sunday River is 19 proper. 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs are permitted to serve Sunday River process 21 through the Nevada Secretary of State. To effectuate services, Plaintiffs must: (1) deliver a copy 22 of the summons and complaint to the Nevada Secretary of State or his or her deputy; and (2) 23 provide the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada with a copy of the 24 summons and complaint to post a copy in the Clerk’s Office. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(c)(3)(B)(i)- 25 (ii). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that that the time to serve the summons and complaint is hereby 2 enlarged. Plaintiffs will have until March 26, 2025, to effectuate service on Defendant. 3 DATED this 30th day of December, 2024. 4 5 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 Respectfully submitted by: 8 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 9 /s/ William D. Nobriga 10 Christopher M. Humes, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 11 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614 12 Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28