Streblow et al v. Club 180 et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHUCK STREBLOW, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CLUB 180, et al.,
Defendants.
8:25CV241
ORDER
This matter comes before the undersigned upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave for
Alternative Service of Nine Defendants. (Filing No. 218). Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-
517.02, Plaintiffs request a court order authorizing service by first-class mail, email and/or
publication as to Defendants Eric Havermann, Miroslava Kotsan, Blaike Koca, Abdul
Rahmanzai, Nicholas Scalise, David Ekdahl, Stu Sleeper, Bravo1 Security, and David
Elayan (collective “Unserved Defendants”), whom they claim are actively evading service.
For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The court will
also address further case management as instructed by the district court in its recent order
entered on November 6, 2025. (Filing No. 222).
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 1, 2025. (Filing No. 1). They amended their
complaint once as a matter of course on April 21, 2025. (Filing No. 24). Many of the named
defendants in the Amended Complaint were served, have entered an appearance, and have
filed responsive pleadings. However, there are several defendants who have not yet been
served or who have now been dismissed. On November 6, 2025, the district court granted
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Case Dismissal Without Prejudice of 27 Defendants as well as
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 222). The
court instructed Plaintiffs to omit any such defendants and causes of action that have been
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 224 Filed: 11/10/25 Page 1 of 6 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
dismissed since the motion was filed and granted Plaintiffs seven (7) days, or until
November 13, 2025, to file an amended complaint. The court also dismissed without
prejudice the pending motions to dismiss, subject to reassertion later, and referred this
pending motion for alternative service and additional case management to the undersigned.
A. Alternative Service
Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an individual may
be served by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of
general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located,” or by “delivering a copy
of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; leaving a copy of each
at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there; or delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1)-(2). Under
Nebraska law, “[a]n individual ... may be served by personal, residence, certified mail, or
designated delivery service.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-508.01(1); see also Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-
505.01 (permitting service by certified mail or designated delivery service within ten days
of issuance of summons).
A corporation may be served by personal, residence, certified mail, or “designated
delivery service upon any officer, director, managing agent, or registered agent, or by
leaving the process at the corporation's registered office with a person employed therein,
or by certified mail or designated delivery service to the corporation's registered office.”
Neb. Rev. Stat §25-509.01. Upon a showing that “service cannot be made with reasonable
diligence by any other method provided by statute,” Nebraska law permits a court to
authorize the plaintiff to use an alternative form of service of process, including “leaving
the process at the defendant's usual place of residence and mailing a copy by first-class
mail to the defendant's last-known address,” or “by any manner reasonably calculated
under the circumstances to provide the party with actual notice of the proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-517.02.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 224 Filed: 11/10/25 Page 2 of 6 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
Plaintiffs claim that several of the Unserved Defendants have attorneys and have
received copies of the amended complaint, but refuse to waive service or file an answer.
Plaintiffs further allege that some of the other Unserved Defendants are actively evading
service and alternative methods of service are now necessary. (Filing No. 220). Plaintiffs
previously requested authorization for alternative service, but that motion was denied
because there was no supporting affidavit submitted as required by statute. See Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-517.02. Plaintiffs have now provided a supporting affidavit and the requests will
each be addressed in turn.
Defendants Eric Havermann, Miroslava Kotsan, Blaike Koca, and Abdul
Rahmanzai. Plaintiffs attempted to serve these defendants multiple times at residential
addresses where each defendant resided or their last known place of employment. All
summonses were returned unexecuted.1 The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown
reasonable diligence to serve these defendants and those efforts were unsuccessful. Service
was attempted at least twice on each defendant, and three times on Defendant Koca.
Plaintiffs attempted to identify alternative residential addresses for these defendants in
hopes of completing service.
Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-517.02, the court will grant Plaintiffs’ request for
alternative service and authorize service on these defendants by either: (1) leaving the
summons and amended complaint at the defendant’s usual place of residence and mailing
a copy by first-class mail to the defendant’s last known address, with a copy also provided
to any attorney believed to represent the defendant; or (2) by publication pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. §25-519, with a copy of the complaint and publication materials also provided
to any attorney believed to represent the defendant. The court declines Plaintiffs’ request
to assume counsel represents the defendants in this matter and will not authorize direct
service on purported counsel. That said, if the defendants are represented by counsel as
1 Eric Havermann: Filing No. 78, Filing No. 80, Filing No. 144; Miroslava Kotsan: Filing No. 116; Blaike
Koca: Filing No. 113; Abdul Rahmanzai: Filing No. 207.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 224 Filed: 11/10/25 Page 3 of 6 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
alleged and fail, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver, those defendants may be
subject to fees and costs as provided for under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).
Defendants Nicholas Scalise, David Ekdahl, and Stu Sleeper. Plaintiffs attempted
service on these three defendants at their last known residential address, all of which were
returned unexecuted.2 Plaintiffs now seek leave to serve these defendants by hand delivery
and first-class mail at 18101 R Plaza, Omaha, NE 68135, which is the business address of
Club180. Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges in his supporting affidavit that each of these defendants
allegedly work at Club 180 and are often present there. (Filing No. 220, at paras. 58-71).
Personal service is of course already authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-508.01 and
therefore, under Nebraska law, Plaintiffs are entitled to serve these defendants in this
manner without alternative service. Therefore, the motion is denied as to these defendants
and this additional authorized method of service should first be attempted.
Defendants Bravo1 Security and Michael Elayan. Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel
alleges in this affidavit that he has attempted service on Elayan, who is the owner and
operator of Bravo1 Security. He initially sent the complaint and service waiver to Elayan
via email. (Filing No. 220, at para. 73). Then, he sent two separate summonses to Elayan
and Bravo1 Security at 2305 South 123rd Ave., Omaha, Nebraska. (Filing No. 124, Filing
No. 125). According to the Nebraska Secretary of State website, this is the principal office
address of Bravo1 Security, as well as its Registered Agent. Plaintiffs do not indicate they
tried any other method of authorized service to serve either of these defendants.
As noted earlier, a corporation may be served by any number of methods, including
personal, residence, certified mail, or designated delivery service, “or by leaving the
process at the corporation's registered office with a person employed therein, or by certified
mail or designated delivery service to the corporation's registered office.” Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-509.01. The court cannot find that Plaintiffs used reasonable diligence to serve these
2 Nicholas Scalise: Filing No. 128; David Ekdahl: Filing No. 88, Filing No. 150; Stu Sleeper: Filing No.
84.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 224 Filed: 11/10/25 Page 4 of 6 - Page ID #
<pageID>

5
defendants when the record reflects that the summons was only sent to the registered agent
one time, without response. Plaintiffs also do not indicate what measures, if any, they took
to serve Elayan as an individually named defendant. Plaintiffs must therefore diligently
attempt authorized service prior to the court authorizing alternative means of service.
B. Case Progression
The district court recently granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and ordered
such filing to be made within seven (7) days from the date of the order, or no later than
November 13, 2025. The court also referred further case management to the undersigned.
Doing so was necessary in light of the multiple filings made in this matter. Indeed, there
are to date some 223 filings in a case that has been pending approximately 7 months.
Plaintiffs’ initial “class action” complaint spanned almost 50 pages, named almost 60
defendants, and asserted over 20 claims for relief. While it appears Plaintiffs are making
some effort to narrow down the issues and parties by way of the Second Amended
Complaint and dismissals, there have been multiple interim filings that have required the
court’s attention. Moreover, and as noted above, there are several named defendants that
have yet to be served.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 encourages the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every civil action and proceeding. In that vein, and in an effort to better
streamline case progression, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave for Alternative Service (Filing No. 218) is granted
in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
2. Plaintiffs shall request summons and complete service, whether alternative or
otherwise, of all remaining named defendants no later than thirty (30) days from
the date of filing the Second Amended Complaint as previously authorized by
the district court. Plaintiffs shall timely file a return of each summons with the
court.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 224 Filed: 11/10/25 Page 5 of 6 - Page ID #
<pageID>

6
3. The deadline for all other defendants previously served (and who have already
entered an appearance), to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,
either by answer or other responsive pleading, shall be stayed until further
order of the court and until all remaining defendants have been served.
4. The deadline for any other defendant not previously served (and who has not yet
entered an appearance) to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
shall be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1) and the deadlines as set forth in the
summons, unless otherwise extended by the court.
5. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a notice with the court once all defendants have been
served, with a listing therein of each defendant served, the date of service, and
the method of service, along with a request that the stay as referenced herein be
lifted. This filing shall be due no later than seven (7) days from when the last
remaining defendant is served.
6. Once the remaining defendants have been served, the court will enter a further
scheduling order(s) lifting the stay as referenced above and will address further
deadlines at that time.
Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 224 Filed: 11/10/25 Page 6 of 6 - Page ID #
<pageID>