Millan v. USAA General Indemnity Co.

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 dismissal under Rule 4(m) is a dismissal with prejudice if the claims would be time-barred by the statute of limitations upon refiling
• noting that the delay must be “characterized by significant periods of total inactivity,” and be “longer than just a few months”
• finding that “[a] delay which warrants dismissal with prejudice must be longer than just a few months; instead, the delay must be characterized by ‘significant periods of total inactivity”
• requiring “contumacious conduct” by the plaintiff, which means a “stubborn resistance to authority” rather than simple negligence
• allowing dismissal only where a “lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice”
• discussing the heightened standard of review applicable to dismissals without prejudice that have the effect of a dismissal with prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).