John Mann v. David Castiel , 681 F.3d 368 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Argued February 14, 2012                  Decided June 1, 2012
    No. 10-7109
    JOHN B. MANN, ET AL.,
    APPELLANTS
    v.
    DAVID CASTIEL, ET AL.,
    APPELLEES
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    (No. 1:09-cv-02137)
    Robert B. Patterson, pro se, argued the cause for appellants.
    With him on the briefs was Ronald B. Patterson.
    David G. Wilson argued the cause and filed the brief for
    appellees.
    Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.
    ROGERS, Circuit Judge: On the basis of Rule 4(m) of the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court dismissed
    plaintiffs’ case without prejudice for failure to prove proper
    service of three defendants or to show cause therefor. See Mann
    2
    v. Castiel, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d 191
    , 202 (D.D.C. 2010). On appeal,
    plaintiffs contend that this was error because their failure to
    timely file proof of service pursuant to Rule 4(l) did not
    invalidate good service pursuant to Rule 4(m); the three
    defendants waived any objections to service by failing to object
    in what plaintiffs characterize as their initial responsive pleading;
    and it was an abuse of discretion to deny additional time to effect
    service on other defendants.
    Because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a waiver by
    defendants pursuant to Rule 4, they offer no basis on which this
    court can conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding
    plaintiffs failed to prove proper service. Plaintiffs rely on
    defendants’ acknowledgment of being served without
    considering defendants’ suggestion of improper service.
    Plaintiffs also confuse defendants’ motion for a stay of the case,
    and to dismiss the case in its entirety, with a responsive pleading
    joining issue with plaintiffs’ claims. The record further
    demonstrates plaintiffs failed to show cause, much less good
    cause, for their failure to effect timely service and thus the
    district court acted within its discretion in denying additional
    time to effect service. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of
    the case without prejudice.
    I.
    On November 13, 2009, John Mann, Robert Patterson, and
    their two wholly owned companies sued 31 defendants alleging
    various violations of federal and state law, including
    racketeering, larceny, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair
    trade practices in connection with defendants’ involvement in the
    satellite communications industry. Complaint ¶¶ 199-382; see
    Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, et al., No. 1:05-cv-01186 (D.D.C. 2008).
    On March 9, 2010 – 116 days after the complaint was filed – the
    district court notified plaintiffs of the requirements of Rule 4(m)
    3
    and ordered them to file proof of service by March 22, 2010 or
    to “show cause why this case should not be dismissed.” Order,
    Mar. 9, 2010.
    On February 12, 2010, three defendants – David Castiel,
    Cameran Castiel, and Ambassador (Ret.) Gerald Helman –
    moved for a stay of the case pending the conclusion of a pending
    bankruptcy proceeding, In re Ellipso, Inc., No. 1:09-00148
    (Chap. 11) (Bankr. D.C. 2009). They acknowledged that
    summonses had been issued for some defendants and that they
    had been “served” in January 2010. Defs.’ Mot. for Stay or,
    Alternatively, Mot. for Enlargement of Time in which to File
    Answer (“Stay Motion”) ¶ 6 (Feb. 12, 2010). On March 25,
    2010, plaintiffs belatedly responded to the district court’s order,
    stating that both Castiels, Ambassador Helman, and a fourth
    defendant had been served, and requesting a 60-day extension to
    effect service on the remaining defendants; they provided no
    proof of service or explanation for their tardy response. Pls.’
    Resp. to Court’s Order Concerning Service of Process Entered
    Mar. 12, 2010 (“Response”) ¶¶ 1, 8 (Mar. 25, 2010). On April
    7, 2010, the three defendants moved to dismiss the case pursuant
    to Rule 4(m). They acknowledged receiving the summons and
    a copy of the complaint from “some person” but questioned
    whether they had been properly served, noting that “[n]o proofs
    of service have been submitted as required by . . . [the] March 9
    Order,” and that plaintiffs had failed, “even at this late date,” to
    produce returns of service sworn to by a process server. Jt. Mot.
    of Defs. to Reject Pls.’ Late Resp. to Court’s Order Concerning
    Service of Process Entered Mar. 12, 2010 and to Dismiss Action
    (“Motion to Dismiss”) ¶¶ 21–22 (Apr. 7, 2010). Plaintiffs did
    not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss.
    The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ case without
    prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) on August 3, 2010, because
    plaintiffs failed “to establish that any of the named defendants
    4
    were served within 120 days of filing their complaint” or offer
    an adequate excuse for their failure to do so. Mann, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d
     at 196. Declining to entertain plaintiffs’ untimely Response,
    the district court noted that they had not filed a motion for an
    extension of time to respond to the March 9, 2010 Order, despite
    two opportunities to do so. Id. at 195. Even if it had entertained
    the Response, the district court explained that “it would still find
    that plaintiffs have not carried their burden” to show “good
    cause” warranting an extension of time to effect service pursuant
    to Rule 4(m), id. at 197, or even “some cause” warranting a
    discretionary extension, id. at 200.
    II.
    “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our
    system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on
    a named defendant.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe
    Stringing, Inc., 
    526 U.S. 348
    , 350 (1999). Under the federal
    rules enacted by Congress, federal courts lack the power to assert
    personal jurisdiction over a defendant “unless the procedural
    requirements of effective service of process are satisfied.”
    Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 
    293 F.3d 506
    , 514 (D.C.
    Cir. 2002); see Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.,
    Ltd., 
    484 U.S. 97
    , 104 (1987); Miss. Publ’g Corp. v. Murphee,
    
    326 U.S. 438
    , 444–45 (1946). Service is therefore not only a
    means of “notifying a defendant of the commencement of an
    action against him,” but “a ritual that marks the court’s assertion
    of jurisdiction over the lawsuit.” Okla. Radio Assocs. v. FDIC,
    
    969 F.2d 940
    , 943 (10th Cir. 1992). Consequently, courts have
    “uniformly held . . . a judgment is void where the requirements
    for effective service have not been satisfied.” Combs v. Nick
    Garin Trucking, 
    825 F.2d 437
    , 442 & n.42 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
    (collecting cases); cf. Cambridge Holdings Grp., Inc. v. Federal
    Ins. Co., 
    489 F.3d 1356
    , 1360 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
    5
    Rule 4(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,
    in relevant part, that “[a] summons must be served with a copy
    of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the
    summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule
    4(m).” Rule 4(m) provides, in relevant part:
    If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the
    complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own
    after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action
    without prejudice against that defendant or order that
    service be made within a specified time. But if the
    plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
    must extend the time for service for an appropriate
    period.
    FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Rule 4 further specifies who may make
    service, see FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2) & (3), and how a waiver of
    service may be proved, see FED. R. CIV. P. 4(d). “Unless service
    is waived, proof of service must be made to the [district] court.”
    FED. R. CIV. P. 4(l)(1). “[P]roof must be by the server’s
    affidavit,” unless service is made by the United States marshal
    (or deputy marshal). Id.
    By the plain text of Rule 4, the plaintiff has the burden to
    “demonstrate that the procedure employed to deliver the papers
    satisfies the requirements of the relevant portions of Rule 4.” 4A
    C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
    § 1083 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp. 2012); see Light v. Wolfe, 
    816 F.2d 746
    , 751 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Grand Entm’t Grp., Ltd. v. Star
    Media Sales, Inc., 
    988 F.2d 476
    , 488 (3d Cir. 1993); Aetna Bus.
    Credit, Inc., v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 
    635 F.2d 434
    , 435 (5th Cir. 1981).          Seeking to demonstrate
    compliance with Rule 4, plaintiffs rely on Rule 4(l)(3) and
    defendants’ waiver by pleading as well as cause for delay in
    6
    effecting proof of service.       None of their contentions is
    persuasive.
    A.
    Rule 4(l)(3) provides: “Failure to prove service does not
    affect the validity of service. The court may permit proof of
    service to be amended.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(l)(3). Although the
    district court cannot be assured that it has jurisdiction over a
    defendant until the plaintiff files proof of service, the defendant
    “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that
    capacity . . . upon service.” Murphy Bros., 526 U.S. at 350. That
    is, a defendant must answer the complaint “within 21 days after
    being served,” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(1)(A), even if the plaintiff
    fails timely to prove service by filing a server’s affidavit or files
    defective proof of service, for the district court “may permit
    proof of service to be amended,” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(l)(3); see
    O’Brien v. R.J. O’Brien & Assocs., Inc., 
    998 F.2d 1394
    , 1402
    (7th Cir. 1993) (interpreting FED. R. CIV. P. 4(g), the precursor
    of current Rule 4(l)).
    Plaintiffs offered no evidence to the district court to show
    that the three defendants had been served, much less properly
    served. Rule 4(l)(3) may prevent a defendant from avoiding the
    obligation to respond to a summons or from filing an untimely
    answer on the grounds that the plaintiff delayed filing proof of
    service or filed defective proof of service that had to be
    amended, but it does not excuse the plaintiff’s failure to file any
    proof of service. See WRIGHT & MILLER § 1130. The plaintiff
    must either make proof of service or come within an exception
    provided by the rule.
    B.
    Rule 4(d) contains a procedure for establishing waiver of
    service of a summons. It requires the plaintiff to make an
    unequivocal request for a waiver in writing, the defendant to
    7
    return the waiver form within a reasonable time, and the plaintiff
    to file the waiver. The plaintiff must “notify . . . a defendant that
    an action has been commenced and request that the defendant
    waive service of a summons.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(d)(1). The
    notice and waiver request must be accompanied by “two copies
    of a waiver form.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(d)(1)(C). If the defendant
    signs and timely returns the waiver form and the plaintiff files it,
    “proof of service is not required” and it is “as if a summons and
    complaint had been served.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(d)(4). Waiving
    service of a summons does not waive any objection to personal
    jurisdiction or to venue. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(d)(5).
    Plaintiffs do not claim to have followed this waiver
    procedure, and a defendant’s knowledge that a complaint has
    been filed is not sufficient to establish that the district court has
    personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See, e.g., Bridgeport
    Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music, 
    376 F.3d 615
    , 623 (6th
    Cir. 2004); McMasters v. United States, 
    260 F.3d 814
    , 817 (7th
    Cir. 2001). Instead, plaintiffs rely on the defendants’ statement
    in their Stay Motion that they had been “served.” The question
    presented is whether this acknowledgment sufficed to show a
    waiver and barred the three defendants from challenging the
    validity of service by moving for dismissal pursuant to Rule
    4(m). Assuming a waiver could be accomplished other than as
    prescribed in Rule 4(d), cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h), the district
    court properly concluded plaintiffs failed to show a waiver of
    service pursuant to Rule 4 by the three defendants. See Mann,
    
    729 F. Supp. 2d
     at 196.
    First, in focusing on defendants’ Stay Motion, plaintiffs
    ignore defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in which they questioned
    whether they had been properly served. In that motion
    defendants clarified that while they had received a copy of the
    summons and complaint from “some person,” it was “unknown”
    whether this person was qualified to serve process. Stay Motion
    8
    ¶ 6; see FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2). Further, defendants argued that
    it was “very suspicious” that plaintiffs “even at this late date and
    under Court order, did not produce any returns of service sworn
    to by a process server.” Stay Motion ¶ 6.
    Second, plaintiffs’ alternative suggestion of waiver is based
    on a flawed premise. Plaintiffs maintain the three defendants
    waived any objections to the service of process by failing to
    argue that the service of process was defective in their “initial
    responsive pleading”: the Stay Motion. Appellants’ Br. 12.
    Plaintiffs mischaracterize the Stay Motion. That motion was
    neither a responsive pleading, such as an answer or third party
    complaint addressing the allegations of the complaint, see FED.
    R. CIV.P. 8(b); WRIGHT & MILLER § 1348, nor a dispositive
    motion raising a defense listed in Rule 12(b), see Glater v. Eli
    Lilly & Co., 
    712 F.2d 735
    , 738 (4th Cir. 1983) (citing FED. R.
    CIV. P. 12(h)). As our sister circuits explain, a motion to stay a
    case or for an extension of time to answer the complaint is hardly
    a “defensive move” under Rule 12. See Conrad v. Phone
    Directories Co., Inc., 
    585 F.3d 1376
    , 1383 n.2 (10th Cir. 2009);
    Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Serv., Inc., 
    855 F.2d 1470
    , 1475
    (9th Cir. 1988); see generally WRIGHT & MILLER § 1386. It is
    true that “when ‘a party seeks affirmative relief from a court, it
    normally submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court with
    respect to the adjudication of claims arising from the same
    subject matter,’” PaineWebber Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Private
    Bank, 
    260 F.3d 453
    , 460–61 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bel-Ray
    Co. v. Chemrite (Pty) Ltd., 
    181 F.3d 435
    , 443 (3d Cir. 1999)),
    but a motion to stay proceedings (or to extend the time to
    answer) “signals only that a defendant wishes to postpone the
    court’s disposition of a case. Far from indicating that a
    defendant intends to defend a suit on the merits, a motion to stay
    can serve to indicate the opposite – that a defendant intends to
    seek alternative means of resolving a dispute, and avoid litigation
    in that jurisdiction.” Gerber v. Rordan, 
    649 F.3d 514
    , 519 (6th
    9
    Cir. 2011); see PaineWebber, 260 F.3d at 461; United States v.
    51 Pieces of Real Property, 
    17 F.3d 1306
    , 1314 (10th Cir. 1994).
    C.
    Plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court abused its
    discretion in denying an extension of time to effect service on
    other defendants fare no better.
    1. Rule 4(m) provides that the district court “must extend”
    the 120-day deadline for service “if the plaintiff shows good
    cause for the failure” to meet the deadline. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
    Good cause exists “when some outside factor . . . rather than
    inadvertence or negligence, prevented service,” Lepone-Dempsey
    v. Carroll Cnty. Com’rs, 
    476 F.3d 1277
    , 1281 (11th Cir. 2007),
    for example, a defendant’s intentional evasion of service, see
    H.R. 7152 Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
    1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 4434, 4446 n.25, or the
    plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and was entitled to rely on
    the United States marshal (or deputy marshal) to effect service,
    see Dumaguin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 
    28 F.3d 1218
    , 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA,
    Inc., 
    583 F.3d 1284
    , 1287–88 (11th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).
    In Moore v. Agency for International Development, 
    994 F.2d 874
    , 877 (D.C. Cir. 1993), this court concluded a pro se plaintiff,
    who had made two attempts to serve the defendants shortly after
    filing the complaint but had done so improperly, had shown
    “good cause” where the defendants long delayed in responding
    to the complaint and were represented by counsel who repeatedly
    asked for extensions of time, causing the pro se plaintiff to “no
    doubt believe[] the defendants had been properly served.” In
    sum, “[g]ood cause means a valid reason for delay.” Coleman v.
    Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 
    290 F.3d 932
    , 934 (7th Cir. 2002).
    10
    Plaintiffs offer no “valid reason” but suggest an institutional
    consideration, namely that the district court should have granted
    them additional time because postponing this litigation until the
    close of the bankruptcy proceedings was in the interests of all
    parties and judicial economy. Apparently plaintiffs filed the
    instant lawsuit as a protective measure in the event their creditor
    claims were not resolved to their satisfaction in bankruptcy and
    so made minimal, and ultimately insufficient, efforts to preserve
    their right to continue to litigate their district court claims based
    on the November 13, 2009 complaint. In any event, the
    institutional argument appeared only in their untimely Response,
    which the district court refused to consider in the absence of a
    request in their Response or in a separate motion for an extension
    of time to respond to the March 9, 2010 Order. Mann, 729 F.
    Supp. 2d at 195. Although “[i]n the absence of any motion for
    an extension, the trial court ha[s] no basis on which to exercise
    its discretion” to grant an extension after a filing deadline has
    passed, Smith v. District of Columbia, 
    430 F.3d 450
    , 457 (D.C.
    Cir. 2005); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b), we need not decide if this
    principle applies here, where a rule mandated that the district
    court exercise its discretion. The district court in fact considered
    the arguments in the Response and found them to lack merit.
    In their Response, plaintiffs claimed that nine corporate
    defendants involved in the ongoing bankruptcy proceeding
    would be served “promptly” after that proceeding concluded
    “within the next few weeks.” Response ¶ 2. The district court
    found that it was unclear any of these nine defendants were
    involved in the bankruptcy proceeding. Mann, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d
    at 197. On appeal, plaintiffs do not challenge this finding.
    Plaintiffs also claimed in their Response that summonses had
    been issued for four other defendants. Response ¶ 6. The district
    court noted that the case docket showed that a summons had
    been issued for only one of the four. Mann, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d
     at
    197. Again, plaintiffs do not challenge this finding on appeal.
    11
    Rather than convince the district court that plaintiffs had good
    cause for failing to effect service, their Response unsurprisingly
    convinced the district court “that plaintiffs have been careless at
    best or untruthful at worst.” Id. Plaintiffs thus can show no
    abuse of discretion by the district court in denying a extension of
    time on the basis of good cause shown.
    2. The Advisory Committee note for Rule 4(m) instructs
    that the district court has discretion to extend the time for
    effecting and filing proof of service even if the plaintiff fails to
    show “good cause.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4, Advisory Committee
    Note to 1993 Amendments, Subdivision (m). Other circuits to
    consider the issue have held, with one exception, that Rule 4(m)
    allows the district court to grant discretionary extensions. See
    Coleman, 290 F.3d at 934; Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co.,
    Inc., 
    402 F.3d 1129
    , 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) (collecting cases); but
    see Mendez v. Elliot, 
    45 F.3d 75
    , 78 (4th Cir. 1995); see
    generally WRIGHT & MILLER § 1137. They relied on the textual
    reference in Rule 4(m) to the district court’s ability to “order that
    service be made within a specified time,” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m),
    and the observation of the Supreme Court in Henderson v.
    United States, 
    517 U.S. 654
     (1996), that under Rule 4(m) district
    courts have “discretion to enlarge the 120-period ‘even if there
    is no good cause shown,’” id. at 662–63 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P.
    4, Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendments, Subdivision
    (m)); see id. at 658 n.5. In view of this authority and in the
    absence of instruction from this court, the district court
    concluded that Rule 4(m) required it to consider whether it
    would grant, as a matter of discretion, an extension of time to
    effect service. In that regard, the district court observed “no hard
    list of considerable factors exist,” and looked to the Advisory
    Committee’s suggestions of equitable factors. Mann, 729 F.
    Supp. 2d at 198.
    12
    Whether the district court’s exercise of its discretion
    pursuant to Rule 4(m) is cabined by Rule 6(b)(2)’s requirement
    that “excusable neglect” be found, or by equitable factors,
    compare Turner v. City of Taylor, 
    412 F.3d 629
    , 650 (6th Cir.
    2005), with United States v. McLaughlin, 
    470 F.3d 698
    , 700 (7th
    Cir. 2006); see generally WRIGHT & MILLER, § 1166, dismissal
    of a case pursuant to Rule 4(m) is appropriate when the
    plaintiff’s failure to effect proper service is the result of
    inadvertence, oversight, or neglect, see Wei v. Hawaii, 
    763 F.2d 370
    , 372 (9th Cir. 1985), and dismissal leaves the plaintiff “in
    the same position as if the action had never been filed,” H.R.
    7152 Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1982
    U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 4434, 4442. The district court
    found that plaintiffs had not shown that there was “some cause”
    for an extension of time on the grounds that the statute of
    limitations would bar refiling the complaint, their service
    deficiencies existed for only a limited period of time, or they
    were unsophisticated pro se litigants as to whom latitude should
    be given to correct their mistakes. Mann, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d
     at
    198–200. Plaintiffs fail to show the district court’s factual
    findings with respect to these equitable factors are clearly
    erroneous, see Anderson v. Bessemer City, 
    470 U.S. 564
    , 573–74
    (1985); FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(6), or that the district court failed to
    consider a relevant factor, see Kickapoo Tribe of Indians v.
    Babbitt, 
    43 F.3d 1491
    , 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1995), or that the district
    court otherwise abused its discretion in refusing to extend the
    time to effect service.
    Specifically, the district court found that plaintiffs had failed
    to provide enough information to gauge the legitimacy of their
    concern that they would be unable to refile their complaint if it
    were dismissed. Plaintiffs stated in their Response that they had
    filed their complaint “inter alia, because of statute of limitations
    considerations,” Response ¶ 7, but did not identify any particular
    statute of limitations that would bar refiling much less “which –
    13
    if any – of their numerous claims would be time barred,” Mann,
    
    729 F. Supp. 2d
     at 199. Plaintiffs provide no further information
    on appeal. The district court also found that plaintiffs had not
    been diligent in correcting the service deficiencies; although
    alerted to their non-compliance with Rule 4(m) and the potential
    for dismissal of the case nearly five months earlier, plaintiffs had
    taken no action to remedy their non-compliance and had not
    responded to the Motion to Dismiss. See id. (citing D.D.C. LcvR
    7(b)). (During oral argument in this court plaintiffs stated, for
    the first time, that they did not file proofs of service because the
    process server they hired using the website “Craigslist” had
    disappeared, Oral Arg. Tape 1:55-2:13, but offered no
    explanation for failing to proceed with a new process server or
    seek a Rule 4(d) waiver.) The district court further found that
    the additional latitude it “typically affords pro se litigants” to
    correct defects in service of process was unwarranted; the two
    pro se plaintiffs had been notified of the requirements of Rule
    4(m) and appeared “not [to] be typical, unsophisticated pro se
    litigants” but businessmen with extensive litigation experience,
    one of whom had formal legal training, and both of whom
    worked in tandem with counsel for the corporate plaintiffs.
    Mann, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d
     at 199–200 (citing Moore v. Agency for
    Int’l Dev., 
    994 F.2d 874
    , 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
    Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing the case
    without prejudice.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7109

Citation Numbers: 401 U.S. App. D.C. 37, 681 F.3d 368, 681 F. App'x 368, 82 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 931, 2012 WL 1957938, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11051

Judges: Henderson, Rogers, Brown

Filed Date: 6/1/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (31)

Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. , 108 S. Ct. 404 ( 1987 )

Henderson v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 1638 ( 1996 )

harrison-combs-trustee-united-mine-workers-1974-pension-trust-v-nick , 825 F.2d 437 ( 1987 )

Smith v. District of Columbia , 430 F.3d 450 ( 2005 )

Love Dumaguin, Assisted by Her Legal Guardian, Lolita J. ... , 28 F.3d 1218 ( 1994 )

Mann v. Castiel , 729 F. Supp. 2d 191 ( 2010 )

Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc. , 583 F.3d 1284 ( 2009 )

Jeannie A. Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., Inc. , 402 F.3d 1129 ( 2005 )

Gorman, David J. v. AmeriTrade Hold Corp , 293 F.3d 506 ( 2002 )

united-states-v-51-pieces-of-real-property-roswell-new-mexico-including , 17 F.3d 1306 ( 1994 )

Elpidio Mendez v. Richard N. Elliot, Individually and in ... , 45 F.3d 75 ( 1995 )

Debra McMasters v. United States of America and the ... , 260 F.3d 814 ( 2001 )

Luise Light v. Isabel Wolf , 816 F.2d 746 ( 1987 )

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in ... , 43 F.3d 1491 ( 1995 )

christopher-turner-v-city-of-taylor-city-of-taylor-police-department , 412 F.3d 629 ( 2005 )

Conrad v. Phone Directories Co., Inc. , 585 F.3d 1376 ( 2009 )

Brian P. Moore v. Agency for International Development , 994 F.2d 874 ( 1993 )

Gerber v. Riordan , 649 F.3d 514 ( 2011 )

Shihshu Walter Wei v. State of Hawaii , 763 F.2d 370 ( 1985 )

aetna-life-insurance-company-v-alla-medical-services-inc-management , 855 F.2d 1470 ( 1988 )

View All Authorities »