§Why CasetextPricing

NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STAMFORD BROOK CAPITAL, LLC et al

REPLY

10 Cited authorities

  1. Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.

    484 U.S. 97 (1987)   Cited 1,876 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service

  2. Orsi v. Kirkwood

    999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 508 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that at the summary judgment stage, documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Rule 56(e)

  3. Venable v. Haislip

    721 F.2d 297 (10th Cir. 1983)   Cited 149 times
    Holding evidentiary hearing regarding whether service was proper where court failed to determine if person who received summons was authorized to accept service for defendant

  4. McCreary v. Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., Inc.

    412 F. Supp. 2d 535 (M.D.N.C. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Holding plaintiff's complaint should not be dismissed when U.S. Marshal served the summons at a post office box rather than the address indicated on the summons

  5. Lostutter v. Cook

    1:17-cv-801 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Explaining that an entry of default may be vacated for insufficient process

  6. United States to Use of Combustion Systems Sales, Inc. v. Eastern Metal Products and Fabricators, Inc.

    112 F.R.D. 685 (M.D.N.C. 1986)   Cited 33 times
    Noting that waiver of a personal jurisdiction defense "has been inferred in a wide variety of situations, even when the defense has been formally raised in an answer, by conduct and inaction, such as . . . participating in . . . discovery"

  7. U.S. v. Stewart

    CRIMINAL NO. 3:01CR11-2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2009)

    CRIMINAL NO. 3:01CR11-2. March 5, 2009 ORDER LACY THORNBURG, District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on remand from the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Stewart, 2009 WL 434864 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2009). On remand, the Fourth Circuit directs this Court "to explicitly address, and accept or reject, in the context of considering excusable neglect factors, the reasons proffered by Stewart for his delay in filing the notices of appeal." Id. at *1. The undersigned

  8. Wright v. Wells Fargo Bank

    CIVIL CASE NO. 3:07cv286 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2007)

    CIVIL CASE NO. 3:07cv286. October 16, 2007 ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Motion of Release" [Doc. 6]; the Plaintiff's "Mot[io]n of Default" [Doc. 9]; and the Plaintiff's "Motion of [sic] for V[io]lation" [Doc. 10]. I. Motion of Release The Plaintiff has filed a document entitled "Motion of Release," which appears to be directed to the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank and Scott Holzmeisler, and not the Court. In this "motion," the Plaintiff appears

  9. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 68,636 times   121 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  10. Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 55   Cited 32,651 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Adopting similar language for acquiring default judgment against the United States