11 Cited authorities

United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa
559 U.S. 260 (2010) Cited 1,888 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that rule 60(b) applies "in the rare instance where a judgment is premised . . . on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard"
Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950) Cited 10,473 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
Direct Mail Spec. v. Eclat Computerized Tech
840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 778 times
Holding court "does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly" pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
In re Focus Media Inc.
387 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 155 times
Holding that, while a purported agent must possess actual authority to accept service of process, such authority may be implied rather than express
Whitehead v. CBS/Viacom, Inc.
221 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2004) Cited 41 times
Granting motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 4(h) when the plaintiff served an individual corporate representative not authorized to receive service of process
Republic Credit Corp. I v. Rance
172 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Iowa 2001) Cited 9 times
Rejecting defendant's argument that service of process was insufficient when the evidence showed that the defendant “was personally informed of the service” but “went into [his] [r]esidence without talking, left [the papers] on the front door”
Queen v. Feden
Civil Action No. 04-2607-JWL (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2005) Cited 5 times
Stating that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is two years
Shaw v. District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 05-1284 (CKK) (D.D.C. May. 15, 2006) Cited 2 times
Civil Action No. 05-1284 (CKK). May 15, 2006 MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOTELLY, District Judge Plaintiff Darron Shaw brought this action on June 27, 2005. As currently constituted following the parties Stipulation of Partial Dismissal, Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth the following claims arising out of an alleged incident of police brutality at the hands of the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD"), which occurred on February 15, 2004: (1) Count I, which alleges that Officer Kevin Davis violated
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 358,269 times 949 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 72,489 times 129 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
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,663 times 51 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Al-Tamimi et al v. Adelson et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that rule 60(b) applies "in the rare instance where a judgment is premised . . . on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard"

Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

Holding court "does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly" pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Holding that, while a purported agent must possess actual authority to accept service of process, such authority may be implied rather than express

Granting motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 4(h) when the plaintiff served an individual corporate representative not authorized to receive service of process

Rejecting defendant's argument that service of process was insufficient when the evidence showed that the defendant “was personally informed of the service” but “went into [his] [r]esidence without talking, left [the papers] on the front door”

Stating that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is two years

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"