___________

F I L E D
Electronically
12-08-2011:11:22:08 AM
Craig Franden
1
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2634050
2
3
4
5
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRIC COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
6
IN AND FOR THE COUNT OF WASHOE
7
* * *
8
ZCH COUGHLIN,
9
10 Plaintiff,
Case No.: CV11-01955
11
vs.
Dept. No.: 10
12
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al;
13
Defendants.
14
15
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
16
PROCESS AND OTHER RELIEF
17
Presently before the Cour is a Motion to Dismiss for Insuficient Serice of Process
18
21
Defendant's WLS and Paul Elcano's Motion to Dismiss for Insuficient Serice of Process
22
and Other Relief. Subsequently, on October 7, 2011, Defendants filed a Reply in Support
23
of Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process and Other Relief. Finally, on
24
III
25
26
/II
27 /II
28 /II
-1-
Background
Standard
14
15
26
1
October 10, 2011, Defendants filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the
2
matter for the Court's consideration.
!
3
I. Factual & Procedural
4
This case arises out of an employment dispute. Plaintif was formerly employed as
5
an attorney for Washoe Legal Serices. Plaintiff alleges that, while he was an employee,
6
he became aware of several potential legal violations by his former employer. Plaintif
7
claims that he was fired after he informed his former employer of the violations, and that
8
such firing was in retaliation for his informing the former employer of the violations.
9
Additionally, Plaintif claims that he was subjected to a hostile work environment.
10
Plaintif filed suit against his former employer and related entities and individuals on
11
June 27, 2011, in Case No. CV11-01896. This suit is currently assigned to Department Six
12
of the 2n
d
Judicial District Court. Three days later, on June 30, 2011, Plaintif filed a secon
13
action, which he admits assers the same claims as those presented in his first action.
Plaintif's second action is Case No. CV11-01955, and it is Plaintiff's second action that is
currently before this Court. Defendants now move the Court to dismiss Plaintif's claim on
16
the basis that Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants in the manner prescribed by Nevada law.
17
As such, Defendants assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendants.
18
II. of Review
19
Pursuant to NRCP 12(b )(5) the standard of review for a motion to dismiss is
20
rigorous. Blackjack Bonding v. Ct atLas Vegas Municial Cour 116 Nev. 1213; 14 P.3d
21
1275 (2000). As such, the Court will construe the pleadings liberally and draw every
22
reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party. Vacation ViIage v. Hitachi America,
23
110 Nev. 481, 484, 874 P.2d 744, 746 (1994).
24
III
25
1 As a preliminar matter, the Court admonishes Plaintiff to conduct himself professionally and civilly in the
27
proceedings before this court. Plaintiff's sarcastic, derogatory, and disrespectful remarks do not assist in
28
resolving this litigation, and may result in sanctions if continued.
-2-
Legal Analysis
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
1 The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
2 Navarro v Block 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). However, there is a strong
3 presumption against dismissing an action for failure to state a claim. See Giligan v. Jamco
4 Dev Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997) (Citation omitted). Thus, upon being
5 adequately stated, a claim may be supported by showing "enough facts to state a claim to
6 relief that is plausible on its face." Bel Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969
7 (2007) (citation omitted). However, the factual allegations included in a complaint "must
8 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative leveL" fd at 1964-65. "The
9 pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates
10 a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action." fd at 1965.
11 III.
12
As noted above, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintif's claim for insuficient service 0
13
process pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(4). As explained below, the Court agrees that serice of
14
process was insufficient as to both Defendants.
NRCP 4(a) requires that:
Upon the filing of the complaint, the clerk shall forthwith issue a
summons and deliver it to the plaintiff or to the plaintiffs
attorney, who shall be responsible for serice of the summons
and a copy of the complaint Upon request of the plaintif,
separate or additional summons shall issue against any
defendants.
Emphasis added. NRCP 4(b) describes the form that a summons must resemble to be
valid, and NRCP 4(c) identifies the type of parties that may sere process. Specifically,
NRCP 4(c) requires that: "Process shall be sered by the sherif of the county where the
defendant is found, or by a deputy, or by any person who is not a party and who is over 18
years of age." Finally, NRCP 4(d) explains the proper methods of serice for various
26 defendants.
As applied to the instant case, Plaintiff's Proof of Serice shows that serice was
28
insufficient in several respects. First, the Proof of Serice indicates that Plaintiff did not
-3-
5
10
15
20
25
14
1
sere Defendants with a copy of the summons, as required by NRCP 4(a). Rather,
2
Plaintif's Proof of Serice indicates that he only sered Defendants with a copy of the
3
Complaint. For this reason alone, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claim on the basis of
4
insuficient serice of process. See NRCP 4(a). However, the Court also notes that
Plaintif's Proof of Serice does not indicate whether the listed process serer, whose name
6
is illegible on the Proof of Service, was eligible to sere process under NRCP 4(c). Indeed,
7
the Proof of Serice does not include any identifying information relating to the process
8
server, the process serer did not make any affirmations as to the details of the service,
9
and the process serer's signature is not notarized. Accordingly, Plaintiff's serice of
process is also insuficient under NRCP 4(c). Finally, the Cour notes that Plaintiff's method
11
of serice for Defendants was also insufficient under NRCP 4(d)(1) and 4(d)(6).2 For all
12
of these reasons, the Court will issue the following order:
13
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss for Insufficient Serice of Process and Other Relief is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintif's Complaint against Defendants is
16
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
17
18
19
'
DATED this L day of December, 201l.
21
22
District Judge
23
24
26
2 In light of the Cour's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants for insufficient service of
27
process, Defendants separate argument that Plaintiff's suit must be dismissed, stayed or consolidated with hi
28
other pending action is rendered moot.
-4-
December

:
u




11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
1
2
I hereby cerif that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
3
using the ECF system which sered the following parties electronically:
4
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MELISSA MANGIARACINA, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, BOARD PRES.
5
OF WLS, MARC ASHLEY, TODD TORVINEN, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, TODD TORVINEN,
6
WLS BOARD MEMBER, PAUL ELCANO, PAUL ELCANO, EECUTIVE DIRECOR, WLS
BOARD, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
7
GARY FULLER, ESQ. for COMMmEE TO AIDE ABUSED WOMAN
8
9
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH COUGHLIN
10
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for TAHOE WOMEN'S SERVICES
DATED this -day of
Judicial Assistant
-5-