§Why CasetextPricing

Federal Trade Commission v. PCCare247 Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 82 MOTION Requesting Permission to Serve Defendants Through Alternative Means.. Document

8 Cited authorities

  1. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink

    284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,488 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements

  2. Madu, Edozie & Madu, P.C. v. SocketWorks Ltd. Nigeria

    265 F.R.D. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 183 times
    Holding that "a plaintiff may not shore up a deficient complaint through extrinsic documents submitted in opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss" when the proposed exhibits are not "integral" to the complaint

  3. Gurung v. Malhotra

    279 F.R.D. 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that the court was "justified in permitting" email service because "India did not expressly object to electronic mail as a means of service"

  4. Luessenhop v. Clinton County, New York

    466 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that challenge to sufficiency of notice of forfeiture proceedings was not barred by TIA

  5. United States v. Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL

    285 F.R.D. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 32 times

    Alexander Joshua Wilson, Jason Harris Cowley, Michael Dennis Lockard, Sharon Cohen Levin, United States Attorney Office, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Aaron W. Knights, D. Michelle Douglas, Haig V. Kalbian, Mark A. Barondess, Kalbian Hagerty LLP, Washington, DC, Henry Edward Mazurek, Clayman & Rosenberg, LLP, New York, NY, James Thomas Bacon, Sefton Smyth, Warner Franklin Young, III, Allred, Bacon, Halfhill & Young, P.C., Fairfax, VA, Alexander Howard Benson, Alexander H. Benson Fields, PLLC, Southfield

  6. S&S Mach. Corp. v. Wuhan Heavy Duty Mach. Tool Grp. Co.

    07-CV-4909 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    07-CV-4909 (NGG) (RER) 03-20-2012 S&S MACHINERY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WUHAN HEAVY DUTY MACHINE TOOL GROUP CO., LTD, Defendant. NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS MEMORANDUM & ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. On November 26, 2007, S&S Machinery Corp., a New York corporation, filed a Complaint against Wuhan Heavy Duty Machine Tool Group Co., Ltd ("Wuhan"), a Chinese corporate entity. (Compl. (Docket Entry # 1) ¶¶ 1-2.) S&S Machinery alleges in its Complaint that it and Wuhan are parties to

  7. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 71,368 times   127 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

  8. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system