BENSON v. STATE, 2:17-cv-00447-RFB-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170419g48
Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 41) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to quash service of process. Docket No. 41. Although not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiff may have filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 42. Once service is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was valid under Rule 4. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 , 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has not satisfied that burden. Accordingly, the motion to quash servi
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 41) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to quash service of process. Docket No. 41. Although not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiff may have filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 42. Once service is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was valid under Rule 4. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 , 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has not satisfied that burden. Accordingly, the motion to quash servic..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 41)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a motion to quash service of process. Docket No. 41. Although not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiff may have filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 42. Once service is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was valid under Rule 4. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has not satisfied that burden. Accordingly, the motion to quash service of process is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
