Darren Lee v. Airgas - Mid South, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because “the unnamed defendants were irrelevant to the merits of [the plaintiff’s] case, [ ] they therefore were properly dismissed, without prejudice, with the remainder of the case”
• filing an amended complaint does not reset the 90-day clock under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for defendants named in the original complaint
• explaining an amended complaint does not restart the Rule 4(m) period for serving Defendants who were named in the original complaint
• “[F]iling an amended complaint in itself does not toll the service period or reset the 120-day2 clock.”
• affirming dismissal of amended complaint because added defendant did not have timely notice of action
• noting Rule 15(c)’s requirement that defendant “receiv[e] notice of [the] lawsuit within [90] days after the complaint was filed” “also can be extended by any service-of- process extensions the district court might grant for ‘good cause’” (internal brackets omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).