Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the absence of prejudice never constitutes good cause sufficient to excuse late service not commenced within the120-day period under Rule 4(j)
• granting a discretionary extension on a record devoid of a 4 showing by plaintiff of good cause
• finding an “adequate connection” between notice-of-appeal-specified and unspecified orders that shared common subject matter
• explaining lower court found no prejudice where alternative remedy to extension would be dismissal without prejudice and re-service but Third Circuit found “absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause for late service”
• affirming the district court’s denial of motion to dismiss and stating that “the retroactive effect of Rule 4(m) means that the district court had the discretion to allow this action to proceed . . .”
• finding plaintiff did not have good cause despite attempts to serve defendants at several different 1 See M.K. ex rel. Barlowe K. v. Prestige Acad. Charter Sch., 751 F. App’x 204, 206-07 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).