PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, No. 2:2021cv02129 - Document 17 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 15 Motion for for Substituted Service of Dr. Laila Mintas. Plaintiff shall file proof of service with the Court within seven (7) days after service is effectuated. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas Doc. 17 Case 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK Document 17 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 PLAYUP, INC., 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 DR. LAILA MINTAS, 7 Defendant. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is the Emergency Motion for Substituted Service of Dr. Laila 10 11 Mintas, (ECF No. 15), filed by Plaintiff PlayUp, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth 12 below, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Substituted Service is GRANTED. 13 I. BACKGROUND This action arises from Defendant Laila Mintas’ (“Defendant’s”) purported use of 14 15 Plaintiff’s confidential information and alleged disparagement of PlayUp, Inc. in violation of 16 Defendant’s employment agreement with Plaintiff (the “Employment Agreement”). (See 17 Compl. ¶¶ 8–10, 14, ECF No. 1).1 On December 3, 2021, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion 18 19 for Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 2). (See Order, ECF No. 11). This Court 20 specifically ordered Plaintiff to serve a copy of the Order on Defendant by December 6, 2021. 21 (Id. 14:11–12). On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the Deadlines Issued 22 in the Court’s Order because it was unable to properly serve Defendant despite multiple 23 attempts to locate her. (See Mot. Extend Time, ECF No. 13). The Court granted Plaintiff’s 24 25 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so the Court will not repeat them here except where necessary to resolve the Motion. (See Order granting in part and denying in part Pl.’s TRO, ECF No. 11). Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK Document 17 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 6 1 Motion, extending the deadline for service to December 20, 2021. (See Order, ECF No. 14). 2 Plaintiff now files the instant Emergency Motion for Substituted Service, (ECF No. 15). 3 Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court authorize it to serve this Court’s Order granting in part 4 and denying in part Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order by: (1) mailing a copy of the Order 5 to 11 Mountain Cove Court, Henderson, NV 89052 (the “Property”); and (2) emailing a copy of 6 the Order to dr.laila@mintas.net and dr.mintas@gmail.com. (See Mot. Substituted Service 6:4– 7 6, ECF No. 15). 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), an individual may be served “following 10 state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the 11 state where the district court is located or where service is made.” See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12 (“FRCP”) 4(e)(1). Like its federal counterpart, Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2 permits 13 service within the state by: (1) personally delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to 14 the individual; (2) “leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual’s dwelling 15 or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who currently resides 16 therein and is not an adverse party to the individual being served;” or (3) delivering a copy of 17 the summons and complaint to an authorized agent. See Nev. R. Civ. Pro. (“NRCP”) 4.2(a); see 18 also FRCP 4(e). Nevada also allows service outside the state and outside the United States. See 19 NRCP 4.3. If, however, the methods of service outlined in NRCP 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4(a) are 20 unavailable, “the court may, upon motion and without notice to the person being served, direct 21 that service be accomplished through any alternative service method.” See NRCP 4.4.(b)(1). 22 III. 23 DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks a court order authorizing alternative service via email. (See Mot. 24 Substituted Service, ECF No. 15). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that its multiple, failed 25 attempts to locate and serve Defendant demonstrate that the normal methods of service are Page 2 of 6 Case 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK Document 17 Filed 12/16/21 Page 3 of 6 1 ineffective and thus, necessitate alternative service to serve Defendant a copy of this Court’s 2 Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 3 (See id.). 4 Under NRCP 4.4, a party seeking an order for alternative service must: (1) demonstrate 5 “that the service methods provided in Rules 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4(a) are impracticable”; (2) provide 6 evidence that “due diligence was undertaken to locate and serve the defendant;” (3) provide 7 evidence of “the defendant’s known, or last-known, contact information”; and (4) state why the 8 alternative form of service comports with due process. See NRCP 4.4(b)(2); see also Eko 9 Brands, LLC v. Houseware Sols., LLC, No. 2:20-cv-2076-RCJ-BNW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10 159616, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2021); see also Huang v. Carney, No. 2:19-cv-00845-GMN- 11 BNW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3980, at *7 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2020); see also Gomez v. State 12 Dep’t of Bus. & Indus. Rels., No. 2:21-cv-01184-GMN-VCF, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201074, 13 at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2021). 14 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met the requirements for alternative service by 15 email. As to the first prong, Plaintiff demonstrates that it made a good-faith effort to locate and 16 serve Defendant under NRCP 4.2(a). Between December 2, 2021, and December 3, 2021, 17 Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant by personal service at the Property. (See Aff. Shanna 18 Garcia, Ex. 1 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-1); (see also Aff. Tanner Trewet, Ex. 2 19 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-2). Once Plaintiff learned that Defendant no longer 20 resided at the Property, Plaintiff swiftly retained an investigator on December 4, 2021, to locate 21 Defendant’s whereabouts. (See Report, Ex. 3 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-3). 22 Plaintiff also requested through multiple emails that Defendant send her current address and 23 location; however, Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s emails. (See Email from Mintas, Ex. 24 4 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-4); (see also Emails between Amirbeaggi and 25 Mintas, Ex. 5 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-5); (see also Emails between Kerr and Page 3 of 6 Case 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK Document 17 Filed 12/16/21 Page 4 of 6 1 Mintas, Ex. 7 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-7). Given that Plaintiff does not know 2 where Defendant currently resides and further, that there is no applicable statute prescribing a 3 specific method of service, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that service pursuant 4 to NRCP 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4(a) is impracticable. 5 Plaintiff’s attempts to locate and serve Defendant, as illustrated above, also show 6 Plaintiff’s due diligence in attempting to effectuate service. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff 7 has also met the second prong under NRCP 4.4(b). 8 9 As to the third prong, Plaintiff provides two, seemingly active, email addresses to contact Defendant: dr.laila@mintas.net and dr.mintas@gmail.com. (See Mot. Substituted 10 Service 6:4–7). Defendant, as recently as December 9, 2021, responded to emails at her email 11 address: dr.laila@mintas.net. (See Emails between Kerr and Mintas at 2). Furthermore, 12 Defendant confirmed in the Federal Court of Australia that dr.laila@mintas.net is her personal 13 address and further provided an additional email address at dr.mintas@gmail.com. (See Decl. 14 of Jennifer Hostetler (“Hostetler Decl.”) ¶ 15, Ex. 12 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15- 15 12).2 The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence, through a 16 declaration, of Defendant’s known, or last known, contact information. 17 Lastly, Plaintiff satisfies the due process requirement under NRCP 4.4(b)(2)(B). An 18 alternative method of service comports with due process so long as it is “reasonably calculated, 19 under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and 20 afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & 21 Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 94 L. Ed. 865, 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950). In Huang v. Carney, the 22 Court determined that the plaintiff failed to adequately explain why his proposed method of 23 service via email comports with due process. Huang v. Carney, No. 2:19-cv-00845-GMN- 24 25 2 Plaintiff provided a declaration by its counsel, Jennifer Hostetler, to show that Defendant has two potential email addresses. Page 4 of 6 Case 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK Document 17 Filed 12/16/21 Page 5 of 6 1 BNW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3980, at *9 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2020). The plaintiff in Huang 2 provided two email addresses. Id. The Court, however, found that the plaintiff neither 3 established that the defendant used the email addresses nor tested that the email addresses were 4 valid “by, for example, sending ‘test emails that have not bounced back or returned as 5 undeliverable.” Id. 6 In this case, the Court is satisfied that Defendant’s email address at dr.laila@mintas.net 7 is a sufficient service method. Plaintiff has established that Defendant used her email address, 8 dr.laila@mintas.net, as recently as December 9, 2021. (See Emails between Kerr and Mintas at 9 2). Furthermore, Plaintiff sent a copy of its Motion for TRO to Defendant at 10 dr.laila@mintas.net, and the email did not return as undeliverable. (See Emails from Behanu, 11 Ex. 6 to Mot. Substituted Service, ECF No. 15-6); (Hostetler Decl. ¶ 10). Plaintiff sufficiently 12 demonstrates that serving Defendant via the email address, dr.laila@mintas.net, is “reasonably 13 calculated to provide [her] notice and an opportunity to respond.” Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1017 14 (citing Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314)). 15 The Court, however, is more concerned with Defendant’s other email address, 16 dr.mintas@gmail.com. Plaintiff relies on a declaration by Jennifer Hostetler, its counsel, to 17 show that Defendant also uses another email to receive service. (See generally Hostetler Decl.). 18 Jennifer Hostetler claims that Defendant indicated, in the Federal Court of Australia, that she 19 has another email address, dr.mintas@gmail.com, and requested the Australian court 20 documents be sent to that address. (Id. ¶ 15). Plaintiff, however, has not sufficiently shown that 21 the alternative email address, dr.mintas@gmail.com, is valid. Other than this declaration, 22 Plaintiff has not established that Defendant uses that email address to send or receive 23 communications. Additionally, Plaintiff has not proven that the email address is valid by 24 testing the address, like it did with Defendant’s email address at dr.laila@mintas.net. Like the 25 plaintiff in Huang, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant receives emails at this other Page 5 of 6 Case 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK Document 17 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 6 1 address. Accordingly, the Court grants alternative service by email to only Defendant’s address 2 at dr.laila@mintas.net. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Substituted Service 5 of Dr. Laila Mintas, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant Laila Mintas 6 by email addressed to dr.laila@mintas.net and by mail to 11 Mountain Cove Court, Henderson, 7 NV 89052.3 Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the summons, Complaint, the Court’s Order 8 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO, and this Order granting 9 Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Substituted Service. Plaintiff shall file proof of service with 10 the Court within seven (7) days after service is effectuated. 11 16 day of December, 2021. DATED this ____ 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Court additionally orders that Plaintiff mail a copy of “the summons and complaint, as well as any order of the court authorizing the alternative service method, to” the Property, pursuant to NRCP 4.4(b)(3)(B). 3 Page 6 of 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
