A LOVE OF FOOD I, LLC v. MAOZ VEGETARIAN USA, INC.

4 Citing cases

  1. Strange v. U.S. AutoCare

    Civil Action 20-1613 (W.D. La. Aug. 9, 2022)

    And courts have found similar delays in serving foreign companies and individuals as reasonable grounds for dismissal. See, e.g., A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc., No. 10-2352, 2011 WL 4102084, at *7 (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2011) (holding that ten to eleven months was an unreasonable amount of time to serve foreign Defendants without establishing good cause).

  2. Basba v. Liu Xuejie

    Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-00380-PX (D. Md. Jun. 18, 2019)

    Because Plaintiffs are attempting to serve Xuelin overseas, the strict time limitations proscribed by Rule 4(m) do not apply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc., No. AW-10-2352, 2011 WL 4102084, at *3-4 (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2011) (noting that plaintiffs "must still act diligently and effectuate service abroad within a reasonable period of time"). Rather, Plaintiffs must demonstrate diligence in effecting service.

  3. Davis v. Liang

    CASE NO. C17-849-MJP (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, this action would nevertheless be subject to dismissal for failure to exercise due diligence to effectuate service abroad within a "reasonable" period of time. See, e.g., Feliz v. MacNeill, 2012 WL 3590808, at *3-4 (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2012) ("The federal rules give no specific time limit on service outside of the United States, but courts have leave to dismiss for failure to serve abroad when a plaintiff is dilatory."); A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc., 2011 WL 4102084, at *3, 7 (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2011) ("[E]ven though the 120-day time limit for service of process does not apply in the case at bar, the Court finds that it was unreasonable for [plaintiff] to fail to even attempt foreign service of process within a reasonable time of the 120-day limit."); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Funai Corp., 249 F.R.D. 157, 162 (M.D. Pa. 2008) ("[T]he exemption from the 120-day time limit for service in a foreign country does not apply where—as here—the plaintiff has not made a reasonable, good faith effort to attempt service abroad during the 120-day period.").

  4. Alula v. Kamhere

    Civil No.: PJM 11-288 (D. Md. Apr. 23, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Courts have established "that a plaintiff must still act diligently and effectuate service abroad within a reasonable time period." A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc., No. AW-10-2352, 2011 WL 4102084, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2011) (