Gear, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “[m]uch of the 120 day period was consumed awaiting L.A. Ltd’s first pleading— a period during which plaintiff had no reason to believe service would be challenged.”
• allowing an extension in service when “plaintiff had no reason to believe [its prior attempt at] service would be challenged” for much of the service period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).