First American Property and Casualty Company v. Hernandez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 FIRST AMERICAN PROPERTY AND 8 CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-JAD-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 27] 11 WALDO HERNANDEZ, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to effectuate service on 14 Defendants Waldo Hernandez and Andrea Hernandez. Docket No. 27. No response has been filed 15 and the deadline to do so has expired. See Local Rule 7-2(b). 16 Service of process must generally be completed within 90 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The 17 Court must extend that deadline upon a showing of good cause and has discretion to extend the 18 deadline even in the absence of good cause. See id. Service on individuals in foreign countries is 19 generally not subject to the Rule 4(m) deadline. See id. (excluding service effectuated pursuant to 20 Rule 4(f)); see also Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 432 (9th Cir. 1991) (addressing predecessor 21 version of Rule 4(m)). Nonetheless, courts possess inherent authority to set a deadline for foreign 22 service. Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conserv. Soc’y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1320 23 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (collecting cases). 24 In this case, Plaintiff has been attempting to secure acceptance of service from counsel for 25 Waldo and Andrea Hernandez without success. Docket No. 27-1 at 15-16. Plaintiff also explains 26 that service efforts are complicated by the fact that Waldo Hernandez was deported to El Salvador 27 and that Andrea Hernandez appears to have fled the country. See Docket No. 27 at 2-3. 28 1 Given the circumstances, the motion to extend time is GRANTED.! The new deadline to 2|| complete service is SET for July 12, 2024. This deadline applies regardless of whether service is 3] being made domestically or in a foreign country. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 2, 2024 , Nancy J on 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Plaintiff throws into the current motion an alternative request to amend the complaint. See Docket No. 27 at 6. Plaintiff is advised that separate documents must be filed for distinct forms of relief. See Local Rule IC 2-2(b). Moreover, each request must be supported by meaningfully developed argument. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. 28] Nev. 2013).