Even

facts.” Id. at 1032 (citing Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 194 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Defendant was not required to allege anything further to establish complete

diversity for purposes of removal. See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig LLC, 840 F.3d

606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016). The district court had jurisdiction over this dispute.

2. Plaintiff contends that the district court abused its discretion by

1 Because the court finds that subject matter jurisdiction was properly alleged, Defendant’s motion for judicial notice is denied as moot.

24-3726 finding that the factors articulated in Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex

rel. County of Clark, 998 P.2d 1190 (Nev. 2000), used by Nevada courts to assess

whether extensions for time to serve should be granted, supported denying an

extension. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision not to

extend the service period. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citations omitted).

Under Nevada law, Plaintiff was required to serve Defendant with the

summons and complaint “no later than 120 days” after the complaint was filed,

unless the court granted an…