Marshall

MEMORANDUM **

John Marshall appeals from the district court’s order granting Swift River Academy, LLC’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 84 Stat. 1128 , as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 , et seq., and for various state law defamation claims. We affirm.

Marshall argues that Swift River failed properly to serve co-defendants with its motion, stripping the court of jurisdiction over the motion. That argument is supported by neither logic nor authority. Service was not improper, in any event. The applicable version of Rule 5 allows service to be effected by “electronic means” explaining such service “is complete on transmission.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(D) (2006). The Local Rules stated “[transmission of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) constitutes service of the filed document upon each party in the case who is registered as an electronic case filing user with the Clerk.” Local Rules of Practice for the United States Court for the District of Nevada, Rule 5-4 (2006). The electronic service was appropriate and sufficient.

Marshall may not maintain a claim under the FCRA for violation of Section 1681s-2(a), which imposes…