Legal Opinion

Geoff Winkler v. Giselle Bennett, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided September 16, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01001Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 Geoff Winkler, Case No. 2:26-cv-01001-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket Nos. 199, 200] 10 Giselle Bennett, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court are the Receiver’s motions to extend the time for service and to 13 approve service by publication on Defendants Maebus, Peason, and Foeman. Docket Nos. 199, 14 200. The motions are properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 15 discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to extend and DENIES without prejudice the 16 motion for service…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Daniels-Hall v. National Education Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
  2. Abreu v. GilmerNevada Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Parker v. ROSSUtah Supreme Court · 1950
  4. McNair v. RiveraNevada Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Hardy v. Beneficial Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Utah · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API