Starken v. Amazon.com, Inc.
2:25-cv-00045
D. Nev.May 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kasey Starken seeks to serve Defendant Timothy Eichhorn in a civil action pending in the District of Nevada.
- Traditional service methods have failed; Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to locate and serve Eichhorn, including verifying his last known address.
- Plaintiff moved for permission to use alternative service methods, including U.S. Mail, certified mail, email, and posting the summons to Eichhorn's door.
- The motion relies on both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4, which allow alternative service upon proper showing.
- The court required Plaintiff to provide status updates evidencing efforts made, with a specified deadline for compliance.
- The order keeps open the opportunity for Plaintiff to email Eichhorn if a reasonable email address is available, provided details are documented for the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative service of process | Starken could not serve Eichhorn by standard means and demonstrated diligence | Not specified | Motion granted; alternative service allowed as outlined by court |
| Requirement of due process | Proposed methods reasonably calculated to give Eichhorn notice | Not specified | Service by mail and door posting comport with due process |
| Use of email without verification | Email is reasonable if believed connected to Eichhorn | Not opposed, but no evidence | Not sufficient without verification; email permitted with evidence |
| Reporting compliance on service | Will provide evidence and status to court as ordered | Not specified | Plaintiff must file a status report confirming service attempts |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785 (Nev. 1990) (plaintiff must exercise due diligence in locating defendant for alternative service)
- Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746 (Nev. 1999) (emphasizes consideration of diligent efforts to serve in alternative service motions)
- McNair v. Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240 (Nev. 1994) (reaffirms due diligence and procedure for alternative service)
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (alternative service must comply with due process requirements)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform defendant of action)