Valdez v. Chuwanti

1 Citing case

  1. Goldsmith v. United States

    No. CIV-22-226-GLJ (E.D. Okla. Jan. 5, 2023)

    “Although a statute of limitations problem may justify relief under Rule 4(m), that factor alone is not determinative and does not make dismissal inappropriate.” In re Langston, 319 B.R. 667, 670 (D. Utah 2005) (citing Advisory Committee Note to F.R.C.P. 4(m)). See also Cloyd v. Arthur Anderson & Co., Inc., 25 F.3d 1056, 1994 WL 242184, at *2 (10th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“That a plaintiff's claims will be time-barred if an action is dismissed for failure to effect service within 120days does not mandate an extension of time under new Rule 4(m).”); Valdez v. Chuwanti, 2022 WL 17093445, at *3 (D.N.M. Nov. 21, 2022) (“[T]he mere possibility of a statute of limitations bar does not establish good cause for failure to timely serve and does not preclude the Court from exercising its discretion to dismiss a case.”);