Wei v. Hawaii

275 Citing cases

  1. Tabi v. McCullough

    Case No. CV 17-1795 DMG(JC) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019)

    When service is challenged, the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that a particular defendant was properly served, or show that there was good cause for any invalid service. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1); Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985).

  2. Crowley v. Factor 5, Inc.

    Case No: C 11-05528 SBA (N.D. Cal. May. 5, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Rule 4(m)'s deadline for service is designed to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their claims. Fimbres v. United States, 833 F.2d 138, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985)).

  3. Geiger v. Allen

    850 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 129 times
    Holding that good cause is established when defendant evades service

    As the Ninth Circuit explained, "[t]he rule is intended to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their causes of action." Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, Congress drafted the rule so that dismissal is mandatory if a defendant is not served within 120 days, unless the plaintiff can show good cause for the delay.

  4. Cota v. Carrows Rests.

    20-CV-1428 TWR (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)

    Inadvertence, ignorance, or oversight of counsel does not constitute excusable neglect. See Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); see also Mumpower v. England, 292 Fed.Appx. 567, 568 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Townsel v. Contra Costa Cty., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion . . . in dismissing [plaintiff's] action without prejudice because . . . his attorney's admitted failure to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [did not] excuse[] his failure to effect timely service.”).

  5. Cloyd v. Arthur Anderson & Co.

    151 F.R.D. 407 (D. Utah 1993)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that a summons lacking the Court's seal and the Clerk of Court's signature rendered the summons "void" and collecting cases

    Furthermore, in construing and applying Rule 4(j), this court is aware that " ‘ [t]he rule is intended to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their causes of action.’ " Geiger v. Allen, 850 F.2d 330, 331 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam)). Plaintiff does not take into account the ramifications engendered by the adoption of Rule 4(j) in 1983, as he cites numerous cases predating the Rule.

  6. Baden v. Craig-Hallum, Inc.

    115 F.R.D. 582 (D. Minn. 1987)   Cited 22 times
    Discussing the 120-day limits of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) which language is now contained in rule 4(m), see 1993 Amendments

    In either event, the burden is on the party on whose behalf service is required to show " good cause" why service was not effected within the prescribed 120-day period. Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir.1985); Coleman, 100 F.R.D. at 478; Davis-Wilson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 106 F.R.D. 505, 507 (E.D.La.1985); Ruley v. Nelson, 106 F.R.D. 514, 517 (D.Nev.1985).

  7. In re DuFour

    153 B.R. 853 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    Holding counsel's mistaken assumptions do not constitute good cause

    Congress intended Rule 4(j) to force parties to be diligent in prosecuting lawsuits. Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985); Wilson, 96 B.R. at 304. Concerned that placing the burden of service upon the plaintiff would lead to abuses, the courts have taken a very restrictive view towards Rule 4(j), insisting on literal adherence to the language of the rule.

  8. In re Hatch

    93 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Utah 1988)   Cited 6 times

    The rule mandates dismissal unless the party responsible for the service can "show good cause" why service was not made as required. Norlock v. City of Garland, 768 F.2d 654, 657 (5th Cir. 1985); Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985). What constitutes "good cause" under this statute is not spelled out in the legislative history.

  9. Townsel v. County of Contra Costa

    820 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 230 times
    Holding that an attorney's ignorance of a service deadline under Rule 4(j) was not good cause

    We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) for abuse of discretion. Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

  10. Whale v. United States

    792 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 55 times
    Finding no prejudice to plaintiff by lack of notice when plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to demonstrate good cause in Rule 60(b) motion following dismissal

    A district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute, where the plaintiff failed to serve timely the defendants under Rule 4(j), is likewise reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 2. Lack of Notice of Order to Show Cause