Brian McKnight v. Jacquelyn Wright

[2] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [3] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [4] * * * [5] Brian McKnight, Case No. 2:25-cv-00749-DJA [6] Plaintiff, 7 Order v. [8] Jacquelyn Wright, [9] Defendant. [10] 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff Brian McKnight’s motion to serve Defendant Jacquelyn 12 Wright via publication and to extend the time for service. (ECF No. 14). However, Plaintiff’s 13 motion has certain deficiencies. So, the Court denies it without prejudice. 14 I. Legal standard. 15 The Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process. Rio Props., 16 Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Mullane v. Central 17 Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). It requires only that service “be 18 reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond.” Id. Service of process is 19 governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal court lacks jurisdiction 20 over a defendant unless the defendant has been properly served under Rule 4. Direct Mail 21 Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation 22 omitted). Rule 4, however, “is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party 23 receives sufficient notice of the complaint.” Id. “[W]ithout substantial compliance with Rule 4,” 24 “neither actual notice nor simply naming the defendant in the complaint will provide personal 25 jurisdiction.” Id. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that an individual within a judicial 27 district of the United States may be served by “following state law for serving a summons in an 1 action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or 2 where service is made.” Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(b)(1), a plaintiff may serve a 3 party through alternative means if the methods of service provided for in Rules 4.2 (service 4 within Nevada), 4.3 (service outside Nevada), and 4.4(a) (statutory service) are impracticable. 5 Under Rule 4.4(b)(2)(A), a motion seeking an order for alternative service must provide 6 affidavits, declarations or other evidence demonstrating: 7 (i) the due diligence that the plaintiff undertook to locate and serve the defendant; and [8] (ii) the defendant’s known, or last known contact information including 9 address, phone numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, or other information used to communicate with the defendant… [10] 11 The motion must also outline the proposed alternative service method and explain why it 12 comports with due process. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.4(b)(2)(B). Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 13 4.4(b)(3), if the Court orders alternative service, the plaintiff must also make reasonable efforts to 14 provide additional notice under Rule 4.4(d) and mail a copy of the summons and complaint as 15 well as any order authorizing the alternative service to the defendant’s last-known address. 16 Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(d) provides that, in addition to any other service method, the 17 court may order a plaintiff to make reasonable efforts to provide additional notice of the 18 commencement of the action by other methods like certified mail, telephone, voice message, 19 email, social media, “or any other method of communication.” Under Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 4(m), if a plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve a defendant within 90 days 21 after a complaint is filed, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 22 II. Discussion. 23 Plaintiff’s motion does not provide sufficient information for the Court to grant it. First, 24 Plaintiff interchangeably refers to Nevada and Arizona. Plaintiff states that “[u]nder Nev. R. Civ. 25 P. 4 .4(c), service by publication is permitted when: 1. The last known address of the person to be 26 served is within Arizona.” (ECF No. 14 at 3) (bold in original, italics added). In the proposed 27 order, Plaintiff provides that “the summons be published once a week for four (4) consecutive 1 Review – Journal.” (ECF No. 14-2 at 1) (italics added). Second, Plaintiff’s proposed order 2 includes a signature line on a separate page in violation of Local Rule IA 6-2. (ECF No. 14-2 at 3 2). Third, Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit outlines only two attempts that the process server took to 4 serve Defendant. While Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit describing these two attempts could 5 potentially be sufficient if Plaintiff attached proof of these service attempts or described the 6 results of the skip trace performed on August 12, 2025, Plaintiff does neither. Fourth, Plaintiff 7 only includes Defendant’s last known address information but does not explain whether he has 8 access to any of the other information outlined in Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(b)(2)(A)(ii) 9 such as phone numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, or other information used to 10 communicate with the Defendant. Fifth, given Plaintiff’s failure to explain whether he has access 11 to any of the other information outlined in Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(b)(2)(A)(ii), the 12 Court cannot determine whether additional methods of notice are appropriate under Nevada Rule 13 of Civil Procedure 4.4(d). Sixth, Plaintiff does not show good cause to extend the service 14 deadline. While Plaintiff cites the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) standard, Plaintiff does 15 not explain how he met that standard. This explanation is particularly absent given the fact that 16 Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 29, 2025, but did not make his first service attempt until 17 June 27, 2025, and then did not attempt service a second time until August 12, 2025. Without 18 more explanation, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has shown good cause to extend the service 19 deadline. [20] 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve by publication 22 and to extend time (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice. [23] 24 DATED: October 17, 2025 [25] DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE