Opinion
No. CV-05-4227-PCT-FJM.
September 7, 2006
ORDER
The court has before it defendants' motion for reconsideration (doc. 31), plaintiffs' motion to strike and motion for hearing (doc. 30), and defendants' response (doc. 27). In their motion for reconsideration, defendants ask us to reconsider our conclusion that their waiver of service under Rule 4(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., served to moot their motion to dismiss based on untimely service. In the waivers of service, defendants acknowledged that they "will retain all defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to the jurisdiction or venue of the court except for objections based on a defect . . . in the service of the summons" (docs. 19-25) (emphasis added). Defendants have cited no authority, and we have found none, that would permit objections to the timeliness of service despite this broad language. Defendants' reliance on Coutinho, Caro Co. v. Fed. Pacifica Liberia Ltd., 127 F.R.D. 150 (N.D. Ill. 1989), is unfounded in that it does not address the application or effect of a Rule 4(d) waiver.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion for reconsideration (doc. 31). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion to strike and motion for hearing as moot (doc. 30) based on our order filed September 5, 2006 (doc. 28).