1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 U.S. LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., Case No. 3:25-CV-00261-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 6 v. SERIVCE OF PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 7 HEDIZ, LLC, and HECTOR DIAZ, [ECF No. 19] 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff United States Liability Insurance Co.’s (“U.S. Liability”) 11 motion for extension of time and for service of process by alternate means. (ECF No. 12 19.) The motion concerns U.S. Liability’s unsuccessful efforts to locate and serve 13 Defendant Hector Diaz (“Diaz”). (Id.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants 14 U.S. Liability’s motion is granted as to both the request to extend time for service of 15 process and for service by alternate means. 16 I. EXTENSION OF TIME 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that plaintiff must serve defendant 18 “within 90 days after the complaint is filed.” Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis to 19 determine whether to extend the time for service. In re Sheehan,

(9th 20 Cir. 2001). At the first step, the Court “must” extend the time for service “upon a showing 21 of good cause.” Lemoge v. United States,

(9th Cir. 2009). At the 22 second step, the Court “may” extend the time for service “upon a showing of excusable 23 neglect.” In re Sheehan,

. The Court’s discretion at the second step is 24 broad.

25 Courts must determine on a case-by-case basis whether the serving party has 26 shown good cause.

Generally, good cause is equated with diligence. Townsel v. 27 Contra Costa Cnty., Cal.,

, 320 (9th Cir. 1987). A showing of good cause 1 means excusable neglect.” In re Sheehan,

(quotation omitted). 2 At step one, the Court finds that U.S. Liability has shown good cause for defective 3 service. U.S. Liability provides evidence that they have attempted service upon Diaz on 4 multiple occasions and at multiple locations. (ECF Nos. 19-1, 19-2, 19-3, 19-4.) U.S. 5 Liability employed a third-party process service provider, Nationwide, to identify a current 6 location for Diaz and to serve process upon him. (Id.) After multiple unsuccessful service 7 attempts, Nationwide performed a “skip trace investigation” which looked into an 8 expansive number of public records, including: utility records, social media accounts, 9 phone records, employers, real property, professional license records, among others. 10 (ECF No. 19-3.) The search also included investigating neighbors and relatives. (Id.) 11 However, Diaz was not located at the must up to date address identified in the search. 12 (ECF No. 19-4 at 2.) 13 Based on the efforts exerted to find and serve Diaz, U.S. Liability meets the 14 standard for good cause and therefore the Court grants their request for extension of 15 time. Therefore, the deadline to serve Diaz is extended to Wednesday, December 17, 16 2025. 17 II. SERVICE BY ALTERNATE MEANS 18 The Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process. Rio 19 Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Mullane 20 v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

(1950)). Instead, it requires only 21 that service “be reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond.” 22

23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) governs service of individuals located within 24 a judicial district of the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). It provides that service is 25 proper by serving an individual in accordance with law of the state where the district court 26 is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). This Court is located in the District of Nevada. The 27 Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (“NRCP”), in turn, allow for service “through any 1 provided in [NRCP] 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4(a) are impracticable”; (2) provide evidence 2 demonstrating that the movant exercised due diligence to locate and serve the 3 defendant; (3) provide evidence of the defendant’s known or last-known contact 4 information, “including the defendant’s address, phone numbers, email addresses, social 5 media accounts, or any other information used to communicate with the defendant”; and 6 (4) state why the proposed service method comports with due process. NRCP 4.4(b). 7 Regarding the first prong, NRCP 4.2 tracks federal Rule 4(e)(2) and permits 8 service of an individual by either delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the 9 individual personally, leaving the copies at the individual’s dwelling with a person of 10 suitable age and discretion, or delivering the copies to an agent authorized by 11 appointment or by law to receive service of process. See NRCP 4.2(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 4(e)(2). Further, NRCP 4.3 governs service of individuals located outside Nevada or 13 outside the United States, and NRCP 4.4(a) governs service in a manner prescribed by 14 statute. NRCP 4.3; NRCP 4.4(a). 15 As discussed above, U.S. Liability provides evidence that they undertook 16 extensive efforts to locate Diaz to serve him personally. However, even after a thorough 17 investigation into his records were made, attempts to serve him personally at the location 18 identified was unsuccessful. (ECF Nos. 19-3, 19-4.) This report also includes Diaz’s most 19 recent address, prior known address, phone number, and other identifying information 20 such as his date of birth and truncated social security number were redacted from the 21 report before submitting to the Court. (ECF No. 19-3 at 3.) 22 U.S. Liability proposes service by posting a copy of the summons and complaint 23 at 840 Singingwood Drive, Reno NV 89509, and delivery via certified mail to this address 24 and to prior known address, 6140 North Deer Meadows Court, Reno, NV 89519. (ECF 25 No. 19 at 5-7, 10.) U.S. Liability points to a case discussing this method of service from 26 the Court of Appeals of Arizona, as NRCP 4.4 was explicitly modeled after the Arizona 27 Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.4 Advisory Committee Notes (2019) authorizes the court to fashion a method of service consistent with due process when no other available service method remains besides publication, which should only be used asa last resort.”). In Montano v. Luff, the court found alternate service was properly effectuated where complaint was posted on the front door of the person’s property and 5 | sent by certified mail.

, 672 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). Consequently, U.S. 6 | Liability has shown how their proposed alternate method of service comports with due 7 | process. 8 Therefore, the Court grants the request for alternate service and U.S. Liability is ordered to serve Diaz by posting a copy of the summons and complaint at 840 10 | Singingwood Drive, Reno NV 89509, and deliver the same via certified mail to this 11 address and to Diaz’s prior known address, 6140 North Deer Meadows Court, Reno, NV 12| 89519. 13 Finally, U.S. Liability is directed to provide proof of service within 30 days after delivery of the letter by certified mail and the posting of the complaint and summons as required by NRCP 4.4(b)(4). Ill. ©CONCLUSION 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadline to serve Defendant Diaz is extended until Wednesday, December 17, 2025. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that U.S. Liability shall serve Defendant Diaz by 20 posting a copy of the summons and complaint at 840 Singingwood Drive, Reno NV ?1 89509, and deliver the same via certified mail to this address and to Diaz’s prior known address, 6140 North Deer Meadows Court, Reno, NV 89519. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that U.S. Liability directed to provide proof of service 24 within 30 days after delivery of the letter by certified mail and the posting of the complaint 25 and summons. 26 DATED: November 17, 2025. .

27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28