Legal Opinion
Argentina v. Emery World Wide Delivery Corp.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided January 22, 1996No. CV 94-0803 (JS)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GO, United States Magistrate Judge:
By letter application dated September 7, 1994, plaintiffs Arthur and Mary Argentina requested a 120 day extension of time pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(m)1 to effect service upon defendants, Eversharp Delivery Service, Inc. (“Eversharp”) and Best Consulting Corp. (“Best”). For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ application for an extension of time *361to October 21, 1994 to effectuate service is granted, nunc pro tunc.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs commenced this diversity action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Arthur…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Myers v. Secretary of Department of TreasuryDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. CajusteDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2012
- Mills v. Curioni, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2002
- Smith v. Bell Sports, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1996
- Jones v. SaulDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.