Gregory Lee Cutuli v. Mehrdad Elie, 13 F.4th 1342

Cutuli, a Chapter 7 debtor, owed Elie a $14,814,107.48 California fraudulent-transfer judgment; Cutuli filed bankruptcy in Middle District of Florida after a related criminal conviction.
Elie filed an adversary proceeding seeking a §523(a)(6) nondischargeability judgment and timely served Cutuli (in prison) but did not serve Cutuli’s attorney with a fresh summons within seven days as required by Bankruptcy Rule 7004(e)–(g).
Cutuli’s counsel had filed a fee disclosure limiting representation (excluding adversary proceedings) and made a limited appearance to contest service; the bankruptcy court denied Cutuli’s motion to dismiss and ordered an answer.
Cutuli failed to answer; the clerk entered default and the bankruptcy court entered default judgment for Elie; the district court reversed for defective service but remanded for the bankruptcy court to decide whether to extend time for proper service.
On remand the bankruptcy court granted Elie a discretionary extension under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (and alternatively found good cause), Elie re-served both Cutuli and his attorney within the extension, obtained default judgment again, and the district court and Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Elie’s Argument	Cutuli’s Argument	Held
Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in extending service time under Rule 4(m)/Bankr. Rule 7004	Extension appropriate; Elie had timely served Cutuli, litigated service defects, and diligently moved on remand	Extension unreasonable given 845‑day lapse; length excessive	No abuse of discretion; extension affirmed
Whether failure to serve counsel with a fresh summons deprived the court of personal jurisdiction	Counsel had actual notice (received complaint); initial service on Cutuli was proper	Stale summons to counsel was a jurisdictional defect rendering judgment void	Extension cured defect; court did not find dismissal required on jurisdictional grounds
Whether good cause existed to mandate an extension	Good cause existed due to reliance on court rulings and confusion from counsel’s limited‑scope disclosure	No good cause; long unexplained delay	Court affirmed on discretionary ground and did not need to rely on good‑cause ruling
Whether the statute of limitations justified a discretionary extension	Dismissal would be with prejudice because limitations period had run; that factor favors extension	Statute‑of‑limitations concern insufficient to justify long delay	SOL expiration is a permissible and important factor; supported granting the extension

Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 4(m) permits discretionary extension even without good cause)
Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (courts must consider statute of limitations when deciding discretionary extensions)
L. Sols. of Chi. LLC v. Corbett, 971 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2020) (standard for independent review of bankruptcy-court orders)
In re Bertain, 215 B.R. 438 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997) (confusion over service deadline can justify discretionary extension)