Legal Opinion

Stinnett v. Wilson (In Re Wilson)

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California

Decided August 21, 1989No. 19-10335PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

CHRISTOPHER M. KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge:

This matter involves the interrelation between the statute of limitations for nondis-chargeability actions and Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Faced with the dilemma that dismissal “without prejudice” for failure to complete service within the 120 days specified in Rule 4(j) could be fatal because the statute of limitations had run, plaintiffs tried to avoid the time bar by filing another, identical action in the same court before the first action was dismissed.

The motion to dismiss will be…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. West v. ConrailSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  4. Sutcliffe Storage & Warehouse Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1947
  5. Vincent Graziano v. George W. PennellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re Staff Investment Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 1993
  2. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Reeves (In Re Reeves)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · 1991
  3. Longmeadow Motor Co. v. Heinz (In Re Heinz)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API