McGill v. Dist. Ct. (Progressive Direct Ins. Co.) ( 2015 )

 Attempts to serve petitioner at that address failed because the occupant
denied he was petitioner or that petitioner lived there. Given these
factual assertions, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously
exercise its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. Int?
Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179
P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126
Nev. 592, 595-96, 245 P.3d 1198, 1200-01 (2010) (explaining that the good-
cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's
discretion); Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998
P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000) (setting forth factors that the district court may
consider in determining whether a plaintiff has demonstrated good cause
for failure to serve a defendant with a summons and complaint within
NRCP 4(0's 120-day prescriptive period). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
t tatic-CiT J.
Parraguirre 1/4)
D OLIJ21
Douglas
AS J.
Chut.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Upson Smith/Las Vegas
Dotson & Qualey
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A