Legal Opinion
Shaw v. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 17, 1990No. 86 Civ. 5244 (WCC)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM C. CONNER, Senior District Judge.
Defendants Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. and Rolex Industries, Inc. (“Rolex”) seek judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. Defendant Montres Rolex, S.A. (“Montres”) seeks an order dismissing the complaint under Rule 4(j) or 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. for failure to serve process upon Montres within 120 days after filing the complaint. For the following reasons, Rolex’s motion for judgment of dismissal under Rule 12(c) is denied and Mon-tres’ Rule 4(j) motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. SchlunkSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Walter E. Heller International Corporation, & Ronald J. GrayheckCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Jeffrey Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, Inc., William Miller, Louis Ceccoli, and Stanley StephensCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Wayne E. Boley v. Dale KaymarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Mentor Insurance Company v. BrannkasseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- AIG Managed Market Neutral Fund v. Askin Capital ManagementDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Com-Tech Associates v. Computer Associates International, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.