§Why CasetextPricing

Macpherson v. United States of America et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sheehan

    253 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 688 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

  2. Brockmeyer v. May

    383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 610 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Convention allows service by mail

  3. Direct Mail Spec. v. Eclat Computerized Tech

    840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 769 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

  4. Wei v. Hawaii

    763 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 274 times
    Holding that inadvertence, oversight, or failure to calendar deadlines does not constitute good cause, or excusable neglect

  5. Townsel v. County of Contra Costa

    820 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 226 times
    Holding that an attorney's ignorance of a service deadline under Rule 4(j) was not good cause

  6. Hart v. U.S.

    817 F.2d 78 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that where the last day of the six-month limitations period under the Federal Tort Claims Act ended on a Saturday, the plaintiff could file on the following Monday

  7. United States ex rel. DeLoss v. Kenner General Contractors Inc.

    764 F.2d 707 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 64 times
    Finding that "[a]lthough the dismissal was nominally `without prejudice,' it was effectively `with prejudice' because a new action would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations."

  8. Fimbres v. U.S.

    833 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 38 times
    Holding strategic reasons do not constitute good cause

  9. Vasic v. Patent Health, LLC

    Case No. 13cv849 AJB (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 13cv849 AJB (MDD) 09-03-2013 DRAGAN VASIC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PATENT HEALTH, L.L.C., an Ohio Limited Liability Company, ARTHUR MIDDLETON CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., an Ohio Corporation, WALGREEN, CO., an Illinois Corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants. Anthony J. Battaglia ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANT ARTHUR MIDDLETON CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(1); AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS ARTHUR MIDDLETON CAPITAL

  10. Reynolds v. United States

    782 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 20 times
    Ruling that good faith failure to read Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not constitute good cause for permitting an extension of time under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j)

  11. 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 354,229 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. 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