§Why CasetextPricing

Kimberlin v. Patrick Frey

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Alternative Service

21 Cited authorities

  1. Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing

    526 U.S. 344 (1999)   Cited 2,787 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"

  2. Friedman v. Estate of Presser

    929 F.2d 1151 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 602 times
    Holding that district court erred in determining that actual notice of action cured insufficient service of process

  3. Doe v. Cahill

    884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)   Cited 325 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding disclosure may only be obtained if plaintiff comes forward with "facts sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion"

  4. Travelers Casualty v. Brenneke

    551 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 210 times
    Holding that "sufficient service may be found where there is a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of Rule 4(e) which has resulted in placement of the summons and complaint within the defendant's immediate proximity and further compliance with Rule 4(e) is only prevented by the defendant's knowing and intentional actions to evade service."

  5. GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority

    680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that new arguments raised in a motion for reconsideration were waived because the plaintiff failed to raise them earlier during legal briefing

  6. Independent News v. Brodie

    407 Md. 415 (Md. 2009)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Dendrite test

  7. Dendrite International v. Doe No. 3

    342 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 2001)   Cited 88 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that this test was a "flexible, non-technical, fact sensitive mechanism for courts to use as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet."

  8. Slenzka v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.

    204 F.R.D. 322 (E.D. Mich. 2001)   Cited 83 times
    Finding 120 days to be significant

  9. Dominic v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp.

    841 F.2d 513 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that a defendant with actual notice of the claims and underlying facts and legal theories "cannot complain of undue prejudice"

  10. Sinclair v. Tubesocktedd

    596 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2009)   Cited 26 times
    Declining to adopt a standard because plaintiff's claim would fail under either the Cahill or Dendrite standard

  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 72,380 times   128 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

  12. Rule 106 - Method of Service

    Tex. R. Civ. P. 106   Cited 794 times

    (a) Unless the citation or court order otherwise directs, the citation must be served by: (1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a copy of the citation, showing the delivery date, and of the petition; or (2) mailing to the defendant by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the citation and of the petition. (b) Upon motion supported by a statement-sworn to before a notary or made under penalty of perjury-listing any location where the defendant can probably be found