Lemoge v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that relief was appropriate under Rule 4(m) because plaintiffs would be time-barred from re- filing their action
• holding that plaintiff had established excusable neglect for the 23 purposes of Rule 4(m) via the Pioneer-Briones test
• stating that a discretionary extension of Rule 4(m) deadlines was appropriate for plaintiffs who would be time-barred from refiling their action
• setting forth standard of review and discussing factors for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)
• finding no bad 24 faith where “errors resulted from negligence and carelessness, not from deviousness or 25 willfulness.”
• describing plaintiffs’ inability to refile because the statute of limitations had run as “the ultimate prejudice of being forever barred from pursuing their claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).