Martinez v. Dist. Ct. (State)

 Here, the petition alleged that petitioner had physically
abused the child. The district court found that while petitioner was not
served with a summons, he had actual notice of a letter sent to him
advising him of the trial date. Specifically, an investigator for Social
Services testified that she sent a letter via certified mail to petitioner's
residence, and he signed a receipt for the letter. This court has held that
actual notice is not a substitute for service of process. See C.H.A. Venture
v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707,
709 (1990). Because petitioner was not properly served with a summons
under NRS 432B.520, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
the petition as to him. Id.
Accordingly, we grant this petition and we issue a writ of
mandamus directing the district court to enter an order vacating the
master's findings and recommendations that sustained the May 28, 2010,
abuse and neglect petition as to petitioner.'
It is so ORDERED.
Hardesty
06.04,
Parraguirre
'Although the master's findings and recommendations were never
reduced to writing, the district court entered an order on March 18, 2013,
denying petitioner's objection to the master's recommendations, which
effectively affirmed the master's findings and recommendations.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division
Special Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
(1:H11MZeKZ2ZEffffftMMMVe5S4