{ Converted to text using OCR. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}

REC'D & FILED

2011 AUG - 3 AM 8:14

ALAN GLOVER CLERK

BY DEPUTY _________

IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY

JED MARGOLIN, an individual,             Plaintiff, VS. OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOE Companies 1-10, DOE Corporations 11-20, and DOE Individuals 21-30,              Defendants.

Case No.: 09 OC 00579 1B Dept. No.: I ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT, DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE

           This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Reza Zandian's (hereinafter "Zandian" or "Defendant") Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance filed on June 9, 2011. On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Countermotion to Strike and for Leave to Amend Complaint. Defendant filed his Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance on July 5, 2011.

           The Court deeming itself fully advised of the matter, hereby enters its Order as follows:

           In his Motion, Defendant argues primarily that service of the summons and complaint was never effectuated upon Defendant. Defendant further argues that Nevada does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant in the instant action.

           In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that service was effectuated upon Defendant as evidenced by the fact that the summons and complaint were mailed to Defendant's attorney and that Defendant was personally served with the summons on February 2, 2010. Plaintiff additionally argues that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this action, Defendant cannot meet the standard for his Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant cannot meet the standard for his Motion to Set Aside. Finally, Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be stricken as he had previously waived his objections to personal jurisdiction, process and service of process. In the event that the Court either dismisses the compliant or sets aside the default, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint to include proper reference to Defendant's actions in the related Arizona case and to re-serve Defendant in a proper manner.

           A review of the affidavit of Plaintiffs process server, Robert Toth, indicates that service of process was never effectuated upon Defendant. The elderly man with whom the process server left the summons and complaint informed the process server that Defendant did not reside there. Accordingly, Defendant was not properly served. Furthermore, Plaintiff's mailing the summons and complaint to Defendant's attorney did not constitute proper service of process upon Defendant.

           Having found that service was never effectuated, the Default Judgment entered against Defendant on March 1, 2011 shall be set aside. However, the Court declines to Dismiss the Complaint based on service of process, process or personal jurisdiction at this time. Finally, given Plaintiff's attempts at effectuating service and the difficulty that Plaintiff has faced in serving Defendant, Plaintiff shall be given additional time to effectuate proper service upon Defendant.

           Therefore, good cause appearing,

           IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Default Judgment entered against Defendant on March 1, 2011 shall be set aside.

           IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance is DENIED without prejudice.

-2-

           IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have ninety (90) days from the date of this Order to properly effectuate service of the Complaint and Summons and/or an Amended Complaint upon Defendant in accordance with NRCP Rule 4, the Hague convention or any other lawful means of service.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2011.

____________________

JAMES T. RUSSELL

District Court Judge

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of August, 2011, I placed a copy of the foregoing Order in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Matthew D. Francis, Esq.

5371 Kietzke Lane

Reno, NV 89511

John Peter Lee, Esq,

830 Las Vegas Blvd. South

Las Vegas, NV 89101

_________________________

Tara C. Zimmerman

Law Clerk, Department One

-4-