for determining dischargeability has passed, and dismissal of the complaint would effectively be with prejudice, thereby precluding a determination of the complaint on the merits. 8. Defendant argues that discretionary relief should not be afforded because Plaintiff made no reasonable effort to serve the complaint within the 120 day time period. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Court will first address whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), made applicable by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(a), permits a court to extend the time for service of process, even in the absence of good cause. Rule 4(m) provides: if service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or its own in (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). After examining the case law, the plain
holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause holding that a jury may draw an inference as to the cause of an illness despite the lack of unanimity among experts as to the cause holding that nothing in  1301f mandates that a plaintiff can only seek an extension for good cause before the 180 day deadline but can be sought at any time holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time holding that an extension of time in which to serve process may be granted despite the absence of good cause