1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Lisa Breslaw, Case No. 2:25-cv-00384-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Peter Cooper, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Lisa Breslaw’s motion to substitute party (ECF No. 12 14), motion for substitute service (ECF No. 19), and motion to extend the deadline for service 13 (ECF No. 20). The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to substitute party because no interest has 14 been transferred in this case. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for substitute service because 15 she has not shown recent due diligence in attempting to serve Defendant. The Court grants 16 Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline for service because she has shown good cause for the 17 extension. The Court further sua sponte extends the service deadline by ninety days. 18 I. Motion to substitute party. 19 Plaintiff moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to substitute Alexis Cooper in 20 place of the current Defendant Peter Cooper. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff explains that Peter Cooper 21 has changed her name to Alexis Cooper because she is a transgender woman. However, Rule 22 25(c) permits a party to be substituted into an action in the case of a transfer of interest. There 23 has been no transfer of interest here. If Plaintiff wishes to change Defendant’s name in this 24 action, she must move to amend her complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. The Court denies 25 Plaintiff’s motion to substitute. 26 II. Motion for substitute service. 27 Plaintiff moves the Court to allow alternative service on Defendant at Defendant’s former 1 attempts to serve Defendant at Defendant’s address in Colorado have been unsuccessful. The 2 USM-285 process receipt and return shows that the United States Marshals (“USMS”) made two 3 separate unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant at one address in Colorado. (ECF No. 18). 4 The Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process. Rio Props., 5 Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Mullane v. Central 6 Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

(1950)). It requires only that service “be 7 reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond.”

Service of process is 8 governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal court lacks jurisdiction 9 over a defendant unless the defendant has been properly served under Rule 4. Direct Mail 10 Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1988) (citation 11 omitted). Rule 4, however, “is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party 12 receives sufficient notice of the complaint.”

“[W]ithout substantial compliance with Rule 4,” 13 “neither actual notice nor simply naming the defendant in the complaint will provide personal 14 jurisdiction.”

15 When a case is proceeding in federal court, an individual is served by: (1) following state 16 law for serving the summons in the state where the district court is located or where service is 17 made; (2) delivering the summons and complaint to the individual personally; (3) leaving a copy 18 of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone 19 of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (4) delivering a copy to an agent authorized by 20 appointment or law to receive service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Service of an individual under 21 Nevada’s rules is similar. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a). Under Colorado’s rules, an individual is 22 served with summons by: (1) leaving a copy at the person’s usual place of abode, with any person 23 whose age is eighteen years or older and who is a member of the person’s family; (2) at the 24 person’s usual workplace, with the person’s supervisor, secretary, administrative assistant, 25 bookkeeper, human resources representative, or managing agent; or (3) by delivering a copy to a 26 person authorized by appointment of by law to receive service of process. Colo. R. Civ. P. 27 4(e)(1). 1 To seek alternative service under Nevada law, a party must demonstrate that the service 2 methods provided in Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 4.2 (service within Nevada), 4.3 (service 3 outside Nevada), and 4.4(a) (statutory service) are impracticable. Under Nevada Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 4.4(b)(2), a motion seeking an order for alternative service must provide affidavits, 5 declarations or other evidence demonstrating: 6 (i) the due diligence that the plaintiff undertook to locate and serve the defendant; and 7 (ii) the defendant’s known, or last known contact information including 8 address, phone numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, or other information used to communicate with the defendant… 9 10 The motion must also outline the proposed alternative service method and explain why it 11 comports with due process. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.4(b)(2)(B). 12 To seek alternative service under Colorado law, a party must file a motion supported by 13 an affidavit. Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). The motion shall state: (1) the efforts made to obtain personal 14 service and the reason that personal service could not be obtained; (2) the identity of the person to 15 whom the party wishes to deliver the process; and (3) the address, or last known address of the 16 workplace and residence, if known, of the party upon whom service is to be effected. Colo. R. 17 Civ. P. 4(f). The Court must be satisfied that the party seeking alternative service has been 18 diligent in attempting personal service, that further efforts would be to no avail, and that the 19 person to whom delivery of the process is appropriate under the circumstances and reasonably 20 calculated to give actual notice to the party upon whom service is to be effective. Colo. R. Civ. P. 21 4(f). 22 Here, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of her attempts 23 to accomplish personal service to justify alternative service under either Nevada or Colorado law. 24 Plaintiff does not provide an affidavit or other evidence of her recent attempts at service. Instead, 25 she describes her attempts at serving Defendant in a different matter in 2021, nearly four years 26 ago. While those attempts appear extensive, Plaintiff does not outline what recent attempts she 27 has made to find Defendant’s address or to serve Defendant other than the two failed attempts by 1 || Defendant, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has shown the diligence necessary to justify 2 || alternative service under either Nevada or Colorado law. The Court therefore denies her motion 3 || without prejudice. III. Motion to extend the deadline for service. 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a plaintiff shows good cause for failing to 6 || serve a defendant within 90 days after a complaint is filed, the court must extend the time for 7 || service for an appropriate period. Here, Plaintiff requests a one-month extension of the deadline 8 || to serve Defendant. Given the difficulties Plaintiff has faced with serving Defendant, the Court 9 || finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause to extend the deadline for service. So, the Court grants 10 || Plaintiff's motion for extension and will sua sponte extend the service deadline by ninety days to 11 || give Plaintiff additional time to serve Defendant. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to substitute party (ECF No. 14) 14 || is denied. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for substitute service (ECF No. 19) 16 || is denied without prejudice. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to extend time for service (ECF 18 || No. 20) is granted. The Court sua sponte extends the deadline by ninety days to January 6, 19 || 2026. 20 21 DATED: October 20, 2025. ) OC? DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 4 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28