Meisler v. Chrzanowski et al, No. 3:2012cv00487 - Document 70 (D. Nev. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 45 Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default; denying Plaintiff's 64 Motion to Compel the Entry of Default. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/6/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Meisler v. Chrzanowski et al Doc. 70 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 MICHAEL CHARLES MEISLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) NADINE CHRZANOWSKI, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________) 3:12-cv-00487-MMD-WGC ORDER re: Doc. ## 45, 64 12 13 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Entry of Default Against Sprint-Nextel, Inc. 14 (Doc # 64.1) Plaintiff’s motion represents he served Sprint-Nextel’s resident agent, a company named 15 CSC Services of Nevada, Inc. (Id., at 2.) Plaintiff also filed an earlier motion seeking entry of default 16 against Sprint-Nextel. (Doc. # 45.) Essentially the representations in this motion (Doc. # 45) are the same 17 as in the later filed motion (Doc. # 64.) This order will pertain to both motions. 18 Plaintiff’s complaint describes “Sprint-Nextel” as follows: 19 Sprint-Nextel, Inc., a defendant, is a Kansas corporation in the business of providing wireless communication services as a cellular telephone services provider on a global network and specifically conducts business in the stream of interstate commerce and in the State of Nevada as a foreign corporation possessing a license and with authority to do business in the State of Nevada under a certificate of authority issued by the Secretary of State of the State of Nevada all in accordance with and defined by with NRS §§ 704.028 and 707.656, hereinafter referred to as Sprint. 20 21 22 23 Doc. # 4 at 5, ¶ 13. 24 Plaintiff’s original motion sought to effect a default against “Sprint-Nextel, Inc.” (Doc. # 45.) 25 When Plaintiff filed his motion for default on April 1, 2015, Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. # 20) 26 was the operative pleading. (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation allowing First Amended 27 Complaint to proceed in part, 7/28/14; Doc. # 22.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint, however, changed 28 the name from “Sprint-Nextel, Inc.” as it appeared in his initial complaint (Doc. # 4 at 5 ¶ 13), to an 1 Refers to court’s docket number. Dockets.Justia.com 1 entity referred to as “Sprint-Nextel Communications, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, licensed to do business 2 in Nevada.” (Doc. # 20 at 4, ¶ 11.) The summons which Plaintiff served, which was after Plaintiff 3 amended his complaint, referred to process on Sprint-Nextel, Inc. (not Sprint-Nextel Communications), 4 being effected “by serving its resident agent, Prentice Hall Corp. Systems, Inc., 3760 Pecos McCloud 5 #3, Las Vegas, Nevada 89121.” (Doc. # 34.) However, the return of service on Plaintiff’s summons does 6 not reflect service on Prentice Hall Corp Systems, but rather upon “CSC Services of Nevada.” The 7 address for CSC Services is identified as 2215 B. Renaissance Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119, which 8 is a different address than the one for Prentice Hall Corporation. Plaintiff submits no documentation that 9 “CSC Services of Nevada” is the resident agent for “Sprint-Nextel, Inc.” 10 11 According to the court’s research, the Nevada Secretary of State’s “Nevada Business Search” states “No Results Found” for a business known as “Sprint-Nextel, Inc., in Nevada. (Exhibit 1.) 12 The court next visited the Kansas Secretary of State’s website and did a business entity search 13 for “Sprint-Nextel, Inc.” As reflected in Exhibit 2, Kansas Secretary of State also does not identify a 14 corporate entity in that state under that name. However, the website did cross reference to an entity 15 named “Sprint Communications, Inc.,” an active Kansas corporation in good standing. (Id.) According 16 to additional documentation on the Kansas Secretary of State website, Sprint Communications, Inc., was 17 formerly known as “Sprint Nextel Corporation.” (Exhibit 3.) However, there is no listing on the Kansas 18 Secretary of State website for the currently-named defendant, “Sprint-Nextel Communications.” 19 The court returned to another search of the Nevada Secretary of State’s website. No company 20 was listed as “Sprint Communications, Inc.” However, a company named “Sprint Communications 21 Company Limited Partnership” appeared on the Secretary of State’s website. (Exhibit 4.) The resident 22 agent for “Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership” is reflected as being the Prentice-Hall 23 Corporation System, Nevada, Inc. (Exhibit 5.) 24 Both motions for default (Doc. ## 45, 64) sought a default against “Sprint-Nextel, Inc. However, 25 that is not the entity Plaintiff sued in his amended complaint, i.e., “Sprint-Nextel Communications, Inc.” 26 The court expresses no opinion as to whether Sprint Communications Company Limited 27 Partnership or Sprint-Nextel Communications, Inc., or either of them, are successors to Sprint-Nextel, 28 Inc., the company Plaintiff originally sued. Nevertheless, it reasonably appears Sprint-Nextel, Inc., is not 2 1 a viable entity in either Kansas or Nevada. Additionally, the service affidavit does not reflect service 2 upon the entity Plaintiff represented in the summons was the resident agent for whatever Sprint entity 3 against which Plaintiff may be proceeding (i.e., Prentice Hall Corp.; Doc. # 34 at 1), but as noted above, 4 service was instead made upon a company known as CSC Services of Nevada. 5 Plaintiff’s motions are defective in that the entity against which he seeks a default (Sprint-Nextel, 6 Inc.) is not the entity Plaintiff has identified in his amended complaint, Sprint-Nextel Communications, 7 Inc. The motions are further defective by failing to reflect proper service upon the resident agent, 8 whatever the correct corporate entity may be.2 9 Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. ## 45, 64) are DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: August 6, 2015. ____________________________________ WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Exhibit 5, the business entity information from the Nevada Secretary of State website for the entity known as Sprint Communications Company, identifies the company’s resident agent as the Prentice Hall Corporation System, but again, Prentice-Hall is not the entity Plaintiff served. 3
]]>
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.
