10 Cited authorities

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
Gillespie v. Civiletti
629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 2,874 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a plaintiff is unaware of the identity of alleged defendants, "plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds"
Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Industries Corp.
94 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 258 times
Holding that Rule 4(m) accords courts the discretion to extend the time for service even in the absence of good cause shown
Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Cited 157 times
Holding that plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant within 12 0 days was not excusable for good cause because plaintiff "failed to make any reasonable efforts to timely serve the amended complaint"
Beauvoir v. United States Secret Service
234 F.R.D. 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 76 times
Holding that courts have "discretion to extend the deadline for effecting service" under Rule 4(m), even if plaintiff has not shown good cause
Aviles v. Village of Bedford Park
160 F.R.D. 565 (N.D. Ill. 1995) Cited 94 times
Holding that Doe defendants must be identified and served within 90 days of the commencement of the action against them
Coleman v. Cranberry Baye Rental Agency
202 F.R.D. 106 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) Cited 11 times
Prospective renters brought action against rental agency and real estate agents claiming discrimination in housing rental based on race, national origin and/or family status. On defendant's motion to dismiss, the District Court, Mordue, J., held that: (1) Extraordinary difficulty plaintiffs experienced in locating defendant despite diligent efforts afforded good cause for delay in service, and (2) plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a claim against the former owner of the agency under
Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 Cited 113,947 times 200 Legal Analyses
Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"
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
Rule 28 - Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 Cited 18,658 times 7 Legal Analyses
Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does

10 Cited authorities

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 Rule 4(m) accords courts the discretion to extend the time for service even in the absence of good cause shown

Holding that plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant within 12 0 days was not excusable for good cause because plaintiff "failed to make any reasonable efforts to timely serve the amended complaint"

Holding that courts have "discretion to extend the deadline for effecting service" under Rule 4(m), even if plaintiff has not shown good cause

Holding that Doe defendants must be identified and served within 90 days of the commencement of the action against them

Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

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

Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities