Hicks v. Leyba

(2) the movant files in the action the original process, the plaintiffs affidavit of compliance, and either a return receipt signed by the defendant or a return from the United States Postal Service indicating that the defendant refused delivery, could not be located, or that the address was insufficient. When the time to serve in the matter below lapsed on May 3, 2007, the record demonstrates that neither of these requirements had been met. Furthermore, Hicks's argument that she had " substantially complied" with the requirements of the statute and corrected the deficiencies in service lacks merit. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to serve. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

j.

Hardesty

Parraguirre

Cherry cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge William F. Buchanan, Settlement Judge Robert S. Beckett

Dennett Winsp ear, LLP

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A

ISIMUEREMBEE