Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRCP 4(i), as amended in 2004, requires a party seeking an enlargement of time for service to first demonstrate good cause for filing an untimely motion to enlarge the service period. Only after that threshold showing may the court conduct the broader Scrimer good-cause analysis concerning the delay in service. The court affirmed dismissal because Gabriela Saavedra-Sandoval failed to show good cause for waiting more than one year after the 120-day service deadline to seek an extension.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether NRCP 4(i), as amended in 2004, requires a party who files an untimely motion to enlarge the time for service to first demonstrate good cause for the delay in filing that motion.
- Whether the plaintiff demonstrated good cause for filing her untimely motion to enlarge the time for service or for extending the time to serve Wal-Mart.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint for failure to effect timely service of process.
Holdings
- When a party files a motion to enlarge the time for service after the 120-day service period has expired, the district court must first determine whether good cause exists for the untimely filing of the enlargement motion. Only if that threshold showing is made should the court conduct the complete Scrimer analysis concerning good cause to enlarge the time for service.
- Saavedra-Sandoval failed to demonstrate good cause for waiting more than one year after expiration of the 120-day period to seek enlargement of time, and improper service on a store co-manager, without difficulty locating the proper agent or evasion by Wal-Mart, did not establish good cause for an extension.
- The Supreme Court may affirm a district court's order when the district court reached the correct result for the wrong reason.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the 2004 amendment to NRCP 4(i) requires district courts to first consider if good cause exists for filing an untimely motion for enlargement of time.” (245 P.3d at 1199)
“Failure to demonstrate such good cause ends the district court's inquiry.” (245 P.3d at 1201)
“Because we conclude that Saavedra-Sandoval failed to address, and therefore failed to demonstrate, good cause for waiting for over one year after expiration of the 120-day deadline prescribed in NRCP 4(i) to move for enlargement of time to properly serve Wal-Mart, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion and granting Wal-Mart's countermotion to dismiss the complaint.” (245 P.3d at 1202)
Factual background
Saavedra-Sandoval allegedly slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store in Las Vegas and filed her complaint on June 6, 2007. Although a process server served a Wal-Mart co-manager eight days after filing, Wal-Mart's statutorily designated registered agent was The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada, so service was improper. After Wal-Mart later asserted insufficient service, Saavedra-Sandoval waited more than a year after expiration of the 120-day period before moving to enlarge the time for service and did not explain why she failed to serve the registered agent or timely seek an enlargement.
Procedural history
Saavedra-Sandoval filed a personal-injury complaint against Wal-Mart but did not properly serve Wal-Mart's registered agent within NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day period. More than one year after the deadline expired, she moved to enlarge the time for service. The district court denied her motion and dismissed the complaint; the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed, concluding that she failed to show good cause for filing the untimely enlargement motion.