ORDER

Re: ECF No. 12

WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Defendant Humboldt County Hospital District's Motion to Quash Service of Process. (ECF No. 12.)1

Defendant Humboldt County Hospital District, dba Humboldt General Hospital (HGH), objects to and seeks to quash Plaintiff's attempts to serve HGH by mail. (ECF No. 12; ECF No 11-1 at 2 and 9.) HGH contends that service on a corporation can only be effected in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Rule 4(h)(1) provides that service on a business association (corporation, partnership, etc.) must be accomplished

Defendant notes Rule 4(e)(1) also allows service to be effected under the terms and provisions of state law where the district is located. In that respect, HGH points to the Nevada rule on corporate service which is found in Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), which rule requires a plaintiff to either personally serve an agent or officer of the corporation or to effect service via the offices of the Nevada Secretary of State. Defendant therefore argues that "neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure permit service of process by certified mail when serving an entity such as HGH." (ECF No. 12 at 2.)

Although, as discussed infra, the court will grant Defendant's motion, the court notes that the Federal Rules do indeed provide a mechanism for effecting service solely by mail. Rule 4(d) recognizes the principle that an individual, corporation or other defendant who or which is subject to service under Rules 4(e), (f) or (h) "has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons." To minimize the expense of litigation, Rule 4(d) allows a plaintiff to notify a defendant by mail that an action has been commenced and request that defendant waive formal or traditional service of a summons. Rule 4(d)(1).

Subparts (A)-(G) of the Rule set forth certain formalities which must accompany the Rule 4(d) notice and request. A party served by mail under Rule 4(d) is not obligated to accept service in that fashion. The consequence in failing to do so, however, is that if traditional service is effected, and if the District Court finds the Defendant, without good cause, failed to sign and return the waiver, the District Court is empowered to award Plaintiff the costs of formal service and reasonable attorneys fees to collect those service expenses. Rule 4(d)(2). A defendant's obligation to reimburse these costs is not dependent on who eventually becomes the prevailing party in the litigation. Estate of Darulis v. Garate, 401 F.3d 1060, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2005). In other words, a defendant who avoids (proper) service under Rule 4(d) does so at its peril.

In this instance, however, it does not appear the Plaintiff complied with the formalities of Rule 4(d). (See ECF No. 11-1 at pp. 2 and 9.) Thus, the service by mail protocols of Rule 4(d) are not activated. If Plaintiff had complied with the terms and provisions of Rule 4(d), it would have been become incumbent upon Defendant to elect whether to accept service in that fashion. But because, as best as the court can ascertain, Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(d), then service cannot be evaluated under that provision. Accordingly, the court must look to Rule 4(h)(1) to ascertain whether Plaintiff has validly effected service upon HGH by simply mailing the summons and complaint to HGH. The court concludes Plaintiff did not and, therefore, Defendant's motion to quash service of process (ECF NO. 12) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.