alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Prinzo & Associates, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03256

Honorable Gary Feinerman

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 17, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion to dismiss [26] is

entered and continued. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion by 9/11/2020; Defendants

shall reply by 9/25/2020. Motion hearing set for 8/20/2020 [28] is stricken. The status

hearing set for 8/28/2020 [23] is stricken and re−set for 10/1/2020 at 9:15 a.m. There is no

need to file an initial status report. The court will decide at the 10/1/2020 hearing whether

discovery should proceed. Attorneys/Parties should appear for the hearing by calling the

Toll−Free Number: (877) 336−1828, Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and

media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please

be sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote

access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing,

recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may

result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to

future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed

necessary by the Court. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 32 Filed: 08/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:170
#### The State v. Merrill.

An indictment for a malicious trespass need not state the means used to effect the injury.

ERROR to the *Rush*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This was an indictment against *Merrill*for a malicious trespass. The Circuit Court, on motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

The indictment states that the jurors, &c. “upon their oath present, that *Richard*Merrill, late of said county, on the 10th day of *July,*in the year 1832, with force and arms, at the county aforesaid, one cow of the value of twelve dollars, of the personal property of one *Jacob Trees, of said*county, then and there did maliciously and unlawfully injure, maim, and wound, to the great damage of him the said *Jacob Trees,*to wit, the damage of six dollars, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the said state of Indiana.”

The objections made to this indictment are, that it does not state the means used by the defendant in doing the injury; nor does it show how much the value of the cow was lessene'd by the injury.

The statute on the subject is as follows: — “That every person *347who shall, maliciously or mischievously, destroy or injure, or cause to be destroyed or injured, any property of another, or any public property, shall be deemed guilty of malicious trespass, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding two-fold the value, of the property destroyed, or of the damage done, and be imprisoned,”- &c. Rev. Code, 1831, p. 187. ■ - ■

*W.*Herod, for the state,

O. *H. Smith,*for the defendant.

We can see no ground for. the objections made to the indictment in this case. The offence is sufficiently described to bring it within the statute, and to enable the Court to render a judgment. . The species of property injured, its value, its ownership, and the damage to the owner, are stated; and the injury is averred to have been done maliciously. The motion to quash the indictment should have been overruled.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment.is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Astronauts Aboard Space Station to Answer Questions from STEM Students","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BSEg1kG8Tx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-aboard-space-station-to-answer-questions-from-stem-students\/\">NASA Astronauts Aboard Space Station to Answer Questions from STEM Students<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-aboard-space-station-to-answer-questions-from-stem-students\/embed\/#?secret=BSEg1kG8Tx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronauts Aboard Space Station to Answer Questions from STEM Students” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BSEg1kG8Tx\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/iss064e011620_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Margeline Thomas","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mthoma22\/","title":"Robert J. Hubbard","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0zcTGqhvuc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/robert-j-hubbard\/\">Robert J. Hubbard<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/robert-j-hubbard\/embed\/#?secret=0zcTGqhvuc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Robert J. Hubbard” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0zcTGqhvuc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 874

To provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid to a resident of

Washington for services as a Federal employee at a Federal hydroelectric

facility located on the Columbia River.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mr.

NETHERCUTT, Ms. DUNN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. METCALF, Mr. SMITH

of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. WHITE, and Mr. TRAFICANT) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid

to a resident of Washington for services as a Federal

employee at a Federal hydroelectric facility located on

the Columbia River.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX

4 COMPENSATION PAID TO CERTAIN FEDERAL

5 EMPLOYEES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of title 4, United

7 States Code, is amended—
2

•HR 874 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—’’ be2 fore ‘‘The United States’’ the first place it appears,

3 and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section:

6 ‘‘(b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOY7 EES EMPLOYED AT FEDERAL HYDROELECTRIC FACILI8 TIES LOCATED ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER.—Pay or com9 pensation paid by the United States for personal services

10 as an employee of the United States at a hydroelectric

11 facility—

12 ‘‘(1) which is owned by the United States,

13 ‘‘(2) which is located on the Columbia River,

14 and

15 ‘‘(3) portions of which are within the States of

16 Oregon and Washington,

17 shall be subject to taxation by the State of Oregon or any

18 political subdivision thereof only if such employee is a resi19 dent of such State or political subdivision.’’

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

21 subsection (a) shall apply to pay and compensation paid

22 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
A EXHIBIT 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:16
Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:17
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Texas, Scotland, Ecuador Students Hear from Space Station Crew","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"x0jeXZhaKl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/texas-scotland-ecuador-students-hear-from-space-station-crew\/\">Texas, Scotland, Ecuador Students Hear from Space Station Crew<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/texas-scotland-ecuador-students-hear-from-space-station-crew\/embed\/#?secret=x0jeXZhaKl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Texas, Scotland, Ecuador Students Hear from Space Station Crew” — NASA\" data-secret=\"x0jeXZhaKl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/iss064e004799.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO HORACIO SALAZARARVIZU, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72939 

Agency No. A200-947-490 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 2, 2021**

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: BEA and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.

Armando Salazar-Arvizu, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 5 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

to reissue its earlier decision dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s finding that he is 

inadmissible and not eligible to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

BIA’s denial of a motion to reissue its earlier decision. Hernandez-Velasquez v. 

Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lainez–Ortiz v. I.N.S., 96 F.3d 

393, 395 (9th Cir.1996)). The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrar[ily], 

irrational[ly], or contrary to law.” Ontiveros–Lopez v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 

(9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reissue its 

earlier decision because the BIA duly considered the evidence of non-receipt of its 

earlier decision and concluded that it was insufficient to rebut the presumption the 

BIA fulfilled its duty of service by proper mailing of its earlier decision. See 

Hernandez-Velasquez, 611 F.3d at 1078 (citing Singh v. Gonzalez, 494 F.3d 1170, 

1172–73 (9th Cir. 2007)). Further, the BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or 

contrary to law in reaching this conclusion. Counsel’s letter of non-receipt was 

unsworn and, although Salazar-Arvizu submitted a sworn affidavit, he had moved 

to a new address prior to the issuance of the decision without notifying the BIA as 

instructed on the Notice of Appeal form and as required by regulation. Cf. Singh v. 

I.N.S., 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (reversing denial of motion to reopen if 

arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law). DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,286
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,936
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,836
<PP&E>                                          15,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,648
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           122
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,866
<SALES>                                         48,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,763
<CGS>                                           29,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    801
<INCOME-TAX>                                       221
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       580
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05



</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-40388 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Geronimo Confesor Gonzalez-Nivar, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:23-CR-171-1

______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Elrod, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender ap pointed to represent Geronimo Confesor Gonzalez-Nivar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Nivar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 11, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40388 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024No. 23-40388

2 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issu e for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilitie s herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 23-40388 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2024
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Emanuel N.Hilario, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the annualperiod ended December 25, 2004 (the “Report”), hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc.
| /s/ EMANUEL  N. HILARIO          |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Emanuel N. Hilario               |
| *Chief Financial Officer*        |
| Dated:  April 8,  2005 |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barbara Steele,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03933-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/26/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8403 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8403 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 2