18 Cited authorities

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing
526 U.S. 344 (1999) Cited 2,725 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"
Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.
484 U.S. 97 (1987) Cited 1,931 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service
Brockmeyer v. May
383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 610 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Convention allows service by mail
Benny v. Pipes
799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 512 times
Holding that defendants had not appeared despite filing three motions for an extension of time to answer the complaint
Umbenhauer v. Woog
969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 323 times
Holding that district court clerk should have complied with party's request to mail process to Switzerland pursuant to Rule 4(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notwithstanding State Department's direction to the contrary, which was predicated upon Switzerland's formal objection to the mailing of such process
DiCesare v. Stuart
12 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1993) Cited 238 times
Holding that even when a litigant appears pro se, he is "obligated to follow the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4"
Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.
928 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 130 times
Finding a district court's dismissal of an express warranty claim to be wrong because a reasonable jury could have found representations in a rental bike company's brochure to part of the basis of the bargain
Montalbano v. Easco Hand Tools
766 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 149 times
Holding that Rule 4(j)'s exemption for service in foreign countries did not apply where service under Rule 4 was never attempted
Novak v. World Bank
703 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 114 times
Vacating dismissal
Johnson Johnson v. Superior Court
38 Cal.3d 243 (Cal. 1985) Cited 59 times
In Johnson Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 243, 211 Cal. Rptr. 517, 695 P.2d 1058 (1985), the California Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of service, the date of mailing, not the tenth day following mailing, controls.
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
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
Section 415.20 - Leaving copy of summons and complaint at office or at usual mailing address and mailing copy of summons and compliant to person to be served
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20 Cited 885 times
Setting forth requirements for substitute service under California law
Section 415.30 - Mail service
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30 Cited 385 times
Providing that service of a summons pursuant to that section is complete on the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed
Section 416.50 - Service on public entity
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.50 Cited 76 times
Stating that service may be effectuated on a public entity by "delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body"

Robert Allen Richards Jr. v. County of Los Angeles et al

18 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service

Holding that the Convention allows service by mail

Holding that defendants had not appeared despite filing three motions for an extension of time to answer the complaint

Holding that even when a litigant appears pro se, he is "obligated to follow the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4"

Finding a district court's dismissal of an express warranty claim to be wrong because a reasonable jury could have found representations in a rental bike company's brochure to part of the basis of the bargain

Holding that Rule 4(j)'s exemption for service in foreign countries did not apply where service under Rule 4 was never attempted

Vacating dismissal

In Johnson Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 243, 211 Cal. Rptr. 517, 695 P.2d 1058 (1985), the California Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of service, the date of mailing, not the tenth day following mailing, controls.

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Setting forth requirements for substitute service under California law

Providing that service of a summons pursuant to that section is complete on the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed

Stating that service may be effectuated on a public entity by "delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body"