Carmen Sabater and Vincent James Desimone v. Shaun Razmy

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a personal-injury tort action because the plaintiffs failed to serve the defendant within the required 120-day period and did not show good cause for their late request to extend the deadline. The court also held that a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under NRCP 12(b)(4) was timely because no responsive pleading had been filed.

Holdings

1. When a party fails to serve process within the initial 120-day period and fails to timely request an extension, the party must first demonstrate good cause for the delay in requesting the extension before the court considers whether good cause supports extending the service period. Because Sabater and Desimone did not show or preserve good cause for their late extension request, the district court properly denied the motion.
2. A motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under NRCP 12(b)(4) may be filed at any time before a responsive pleading is filed; NRCP 12(b) imposes no separate 21-day deadline for such a motion. Because Razmy filed the motion before filing an answer, the motion was timely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' untimely motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint.
2. Whether a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under NRCP 12(b)(4) is untimely when filed more than 21 days after service of the summons and complaint but before any responsive pleading is filed.

Disposition

affirmed