ORDER

(Docket No. 22)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve Defendant Liqun

Holdings Limited ("Defendant"), and for leave to serve it by publication or through the Secretary of State. Docket No. 22. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Motion to Extend Time for Service

Where good cause is shown, the time for serving the complaint is extended for an appropriate period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The motion establishes sufficient cause to extend the time for effectuating service on Defendant for 60 days.

II. Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication

Plaintiff seeks leave to serve Defendant by publication. Service by publication implicates a defendant's fundamental due process rights. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950); Price v. Dunn, 787 P.2d 785, 787 (Nev. 1990). As a result, service by publication is generally disfavored. See, e.g., Trustees of the Nev. Resort Assoc.—Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators v. Alumifax, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 106456, *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2013).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is made. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are generally required to personally serve summons and the complaint upon defendants. Nevada law also permits a party to obtain leave for service by publication when the opposing party, inter alia "cannot, after due diligence be found within the state, or by concealment seeks to avoid the service of summons." Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). There are several factors courts consider to evaluate a party's due diligence, including the number of attempts made to serve the defendant at his residence and other methods of locating defendants, such as consulting public directories and family members. See Price, 787 P.2d at 786-87; Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 747 (Nev. 1999); McNair v. Rivera, 874 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Nev. 1994).

Here, Plaintiff's efforts to effectuate service consist of (1) attempting to personally serve the Defendant's president (Zhiqun Huang) at two locations identified on the Secretary of State website and (2) attempting to serve Defendant through its previous attorney. See, e.g., Docket No. 22-2. Such efforts are not sufficient for the Court to permit Plaintiff to bypass the traditional service requirements. For example, Plaintiff fails to explain whether it has conducted any searches regarding the location for Mr. Huang apart from reviewing the Secretary of State website. Nor has Plaintiff explained whether it has searched for the current location of Defendant's other officers, Zhihong Mo and Geng Zhang. Cf. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) (Nevada corporate entities may generally be served through any of their officers).1 Given that it appears several avenues to effectuate service remain unexplored, the Court finds the request to serve Defendant by publication to be premature.

III. Motion for Leave to Serve Through the Secretary of State

Plaintiff also requests leave to serve Defendant through the Secretary of State. Plaintiff's single paragraph devoted to seeking this relief does not meaningfully develop the issue. See Docket No. 22 at 5. Therefore, it will be denied. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013).2

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the pending motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. More particularly, the deadline to effectuate service on Defendant is extended by 60 days. The requests to serve Defendant by publication or through the Secretary of State are denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.