Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Francis Lacina, David Galbraith, Bill Knight, George Craig,ted Edwards, Charles Beeson, Donald Evans, Robert Beck, Louresinger, Andrew Rogers, Buck Germany, Dan Kelley, Marvingates, Wilburt Bond, William Gonzales, Lester Dixon, Frankmatney, and Rick Bernas, Plaintiffs-appellants,andpetersen & Ferguson, Appellant, v. G-k Trucking; General Cable; Penn-central Corp.; G-ktechnologies; Eastern Carriers; and Robertjenson, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 822 F.2d 51
July 15, 1987
Peter J. Ferguson, Santa Ana, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
David Cathcart, Newport Beach, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before KENNEDY, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to an Order by the United States Supreme Court dated June 22, 1987, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 3224, 97 L.Ed.2d 731, the judgment of this court filed on October 21, 1986, as amended on December 30, 1986, is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings in light of West v. Conrail, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1538, 95 L.Ed.2d 32 (1987).
We note that in West, each defendant "acknowledged service on dates" within the requirements of Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1540. On remand the district court should therefore consider what effect, if any, the plaintiffs' failure to secure service of the first complaint has on the outcome. See id. at 1541, 1542 nn. 5-7 (holding that the service requirements of Rule 4(j) apply to complaints which toll the statute of limitations).
The motion to recall the mandate is DENIED as moot.