Rojas v. Leeman
2:25-cv-01046
| D. Nev. | Jul 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs allege defendant Gary Leeman recklessly rear-ended them while driving a semi-truck as an employee or agent of Hot Shot Express and Jones Motor Group.
- Plaintiffs successfully served Leeman, who appeared in the case, but Hot Shot and Jones have not appeared despite service attempts.
- Plaintiffs moved for leave to use alternate service methods, including service by publication, after diligent but unsuccessful efforts to serve Hot Shot and Jones by traditional means.
- Plaintiffs detailed multiple efforts to locate and serve Hot Shot and Jones at business addresses in Pennsylvania and via a purported parent company.
- Plaintiffs asked for additional time to serve Hot Shot and Jones and proposed alternate notification methods (publication, certified mail, voice messages).
- The matter is before the District of Nevada on Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time and permit alternate service under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service by alternate methods | Prior service attempts were diligent and comply with NRCP 4.4(c) requirements | No opposition (Defendants have not appeared) | Granted: Plaintiffs met NRCP 4.4(c) for service by publication |
| Extension of time for service | Diligent attempts justify good cause for extension | No opposition | Granted: Good cause shown, deadline extended to Oct. 27, 2025 |
| Method and adequacy of notice | Notice by publication, certified mail, and voice message are reasonably calculated to reach Defendants | No opposition | Granted: Ordered publication, certified mail, phone notification |
| Necessity of named parties | Hot Shot and Jones are necessary/proper as Leeman's employers/principals | No opposition | Held: Hot Shot and Jones are necessary parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (service of process must be reasonably calculated to provide notice and opportunity to respond)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice be reasonably calculated under circumstances)
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (federal rules apply regardless of contrary state law)
- Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 347 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rules Enabling Act: federal rules do not alter substantive rights)
- In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2001) (court discretion under FRCP 4(m) to extend service period for good cause)