Legal Opinion
Roderick Courtney Mann v. American Airlines
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 1, 2003No. 01-35803PublishedCited by 165 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOULD, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Roderick C. Mann filed a civil action within the governing statute of limitations but then did not serve process within 120 days of filing, as required (absent time extension) by Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). Mann then moved for an extension of time to serve Defendant-Ap-pellee American Airlines, was granted additional time by the district court, and effected service within the judicially extended time. We consider (1) whether the failure to serve process within the initial 120-day period causes the statute of limitations to run again and (2) whether the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Dr. S.B. Pardazi v. Cullman Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- Michael Sain Ryan White Lori J. Sain, Personally and as Next Friend for Crystal Sain v. City of Bend Buck Church Tom Pine Al CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Ruth WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRUMMAN OHIO CORP., Fka Grumman Flxible Corp., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Kenneth FosterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by165 opinions
- Maria Escobedo v. Apple American GroupCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Lukovsky v. City and County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Efaw v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Jeannie A. Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
160 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.