Legal Opinion
Hammad v. Tate Access Floors, Inc.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided January 6, 1999No. Civil CCB-98-409PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BLAKE, District Judge.
Now pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12. Because the court finds that the plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process upon the defendant in a timely manner, the court will grant the defendant’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Shaker Hammad initiated the present lawsuit on February 10, 1998, when he filed a pro se complaint alleging that his former employer, the defendant Tate Access Floors, Inc. (hereinafter “Tate”), had discriminated against him on the basis of his “race, color,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Toby J. Espinoza v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Thompson v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Jeannine Troxell v. Fedders of North America, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- Wayne E. Boley v. Dale KaymarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Hoffman v. Baltimore Police Dept.District Court, D. Maryland · 2005
- Robinson v. G D C, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2016
- Tann v. FisherDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2011
- United States ex rel. Shaw Environmental, Inc. v. Gulf InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2005
- Burns & Russell Co. of Baltimore v. OLDCASTLEDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2001
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.