9 Cited authorities

Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (1985) Cited 19,882 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity," and that "a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself"
Brandon v. Holt
469 U.S. 464 (1985) Cited 2,386 times
Holding that an official sued in his official capacity may not take advantage of a qualified immunity defense
Henderson v. United States
517 U.S. 654 (1996) Cited 988 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the 120-day provision in Rule 4 is not jurisdictional and may be extended at the discretion of the district court
Hernandez v. City of El Monte
138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,404 times
Holding that district court may dismiss a case sua sponte for judge-shopping
Efaw v. Williams
473 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 593 times
Holding "Rule 4(m) . . . requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay"
In re Sheehan
253 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 697 times
Holding that service of process is "one of the most fundamental acts to commence an action" and therefore failure to do so does not rise to the level of excusable neglect
Mann v. American Airlines
324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 321 times
Holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired
United States v. 2,164 Watches, More or Less, Bearing A Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc.
366 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 170 times
Holding that "even without a showing of good cause, a district court may utilize its 'broad' discretion to extend the time for service" and directing the lower court to consider whether the claimant would suffer any prejudice from dismissal
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

In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

9 Cited authorities

Holding that "an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity," and that "a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself"

Holding that an official sued in his official capacity may not take advantage of a qualified immunity defense

Holding that the 120-day provision in Rule 4 is not jurisdictional and may be extended at the discretion of the district court

Holding that district court may dismiss a case sua sponte for judge-shopping

Holding "Rule 4(m) . . . requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay"

Holding that service of process is "one of the most fundamental acts to commence an action" and therefore failure to do so does not rise to the level of excusable neglect

Holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Holding that "even without a showing of good cause, a district court may utilize its 'broad' discretion to extend the time for service" and directing the lower court to consider whether the claimant would suffer any prejudice from dismissal

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