Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger
46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 859 timesHolding "a district court may not consider the fact that the statute of limitation has run until after [the court] has conducted an examination of good cause"
Thompson v. Brown
91 F.3d 20 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 404 timesHolding that district court was not required to extend the time period for service when plaintiff admitted that good cause did not exist and failed to ask the court for an extension
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Starkey
41 F.3d 1018 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 175 timesAffirming district court's denial of motion for leave to file motion to dismiss where defendant waived insufficiency of process by failing to raise it in answer
Gartin v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
561 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D. Tex. 2007) Cited 8 timesNo. 4:06-CV-128. March 26, 2007 Arnold Anderson (Andy) Vickery, Vickery Waldner, Houston, TX, Earl Landers Vickery, Law Office of Lanny Vickery, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs. Joseph Paul Thomas, Ulmer Berne LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Scott Doulgas Levine, Banowsky Levine, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.'S MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS AND RETURN
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 72,489 times 129 Legal AnalysesHolding 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