Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
126 Nev. 592
| Nev. | 2010Background
- Saavedra-Sandoval filed suit in 2007 for a slip-and-fall at a Las Vegas Wal‑Mart.
- Initial service eight days after filing was on a Wal‑Mart co‑manager, not the statutorily designated agent.
- The process server affidavit incorrectly named the co‑manager as the agent authorized to accept service.
- NRCP 4(i) 120‑day service period passed without proper service; Wal‑Mart answered after improper default notice.
- In 2009, Saavedra-Sandoval moved to enlarge time for service; district court denied and Wal‑Mart moved to dismiss for insufficient service.
- Nevada’s 2004 amendment to NRCP 4(i) requires a threshold showing of good cause for untimely motions and then Scrimer analysis if such cause exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of 2004 NRCP 4(i) amendment | Saavedra-Sandoval argues good cause exists under Scrimer. | Wal‑Mart contends untimely motion cannot be aided absent threshold good cause. | Amendment requires threshold good cause before Scrimer analysis. |
| Good cause for untimely motion to enlarge time | Saavedra-Sandoval asserts process server attempts and default notice show good cause. | Wal‑Mart contends no justification for delay in filing motion. | No good cause shown for filing the untimely motion. |
| Whether dismissal for failure to timely serve was proper | Saavedra-Sandoval seeks enlargement and avoiding dismissal. | Wal‑Mart argues failure to timely serve warrants dismissal. | District court’s dismissal upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scrimer v. District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 998 P.2d 1190 (Nev. 2000) (set forth factors for good cause to extend time for service)
- Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 747 P.2d 230 (Nev. 1987) (affirms affirming result if district court reaches correct outcome for correct reason)
- Abreu v. Gilmer, 115 Nev. 308, 985 P.2d 746 (Nev. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal for untimely service)