Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the district court must consider whether any other factors warrant extending time even though good cause was not shown”
• recognizing that the Court “may . . . consider whether the running of the statute of limitations would warrant granting an extension of time” and also noting lack of prejudice to defendant as a factor for extending time to serve
• explaining that the Rule 4(m) advisory committee’s notes explain the rule allows for relief from dismissal even if plaintiff has not shown good cause
• explaining that “inadvertence,” “half-hearted efforts” of counsel, and misplaced reliance on others will not constitute good cause
• noting that it is “error as a matter of law” to grant default judgment against a party that has not been served
• finding that use of the disjunctive “or” in the first clause of Rule 4(m) allows the court to choose between the two options

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).