of good cause.” Id. at 1305. The court relied primarily on the Advisory Committee’s explanation of Rule 4(m): “[t]he new subdivision explicitly provides that the court shall allow additional time, if there is good cause for the plaintiffs failure to effect service in the prescribed 120 days, and authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an application of this subdivision even if there is no good cause shown.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) advisory committee’s note (1993) (emphasis added). Several circuits have followed the rationale of Petrucelli concluding that Rule 4(m) grants courts the discretionary authority to extend the time for service of process, even in the absence of good cause. See e.g., Pananas v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338, 340 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th
holding that the plain language of the rule broadens a courts discretion to extend time for service even if good cause has not been shown holding that if good cause does not exist the court has the discretion to either dismiss the action without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified time holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause holding that personal jurisdiction is not conferred if service under rule 4 is not properly effected