Datskow v. Teledyne

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant forfeited the defense of improper service by participating in litigation for four months after raising the personal jurisdiction issue in its answer
• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in amending summons, complaint, and default judgment to correct misnaming of defendant as “Sanctuary Music” when correct name was “Sanctuary Records Group”
• holding that “defendant’s conduct bars it from complaining about the defective form of service. Defendant attended the conference with the magistrate and participated in scheduling discovery and motion practice. Nothing was said about defective service of process.”
• finding defendant’s actions, including attending a conference with a magistrate judge and participating in discovery and motion practice, barred defendant from complaining about defective service
• “[C]omplaining only about a defect in the form of service” is quite different from “contesting personal jurisdiction
• finding a “mistake” where plaintiffs identified the “corporate entity as ‘Teledyne, Inc.,’ whereas the correct name of the corporate defendant [was] ‘Teledyne Industries, Inc.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).