Amaya v. Rutiaga-Lopez ( 2014 )

 service of process on respondent within 120 days' nor filed a motion to
enlarge the time for service, the district court properly dismissed
appellants' complaint. NRCP 4(i); Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at
245 P.3d at 1200 (explaining that this court reviews a district court order
granting a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process for an
abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Parraeuirre Saitta
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Ralph A. Schwartz, P.C.
Hutchison & Steffen, LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Appellants' suggestion that they substantially complied with NRS
14.070(2)'s substitute-service provision lacks merit. Under NRS 14.070(2),
service is deemed sufficient if, in addition to providing a copy of the
process with the required fee to the Director of the Department of Motor
Vehicles, the plaintiff (1) sends notice of service and a copy of the process
to the defendant's address by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested; and (2) files in the district court the original process, a return
receipt of the mailing, and an affidavit stating that the plaintiff has
complied with these steps. When NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day time frame elapsed
on August 31, 2012, the record demonstrates that neither of these
requirements had been attempted. Consequently, appellants cannot
reasonably contend that they substantially complied with NRS 14.070(2).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A 4e).