after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (1997). The Third Circuit was the first federal appellate court to consider whether Rule 4(m) grants courts the discretionary authority to extend the time for service, even in the absence of good cause. See Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, GMBH, et al., 46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir.1995). In Petrucelli, the Third Circuit held “[w]e read the new rule to require a court to extend time if good cause is shown and to allow a court discretion to dismiss or extend time absent a show ) (<HOLDING>); Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838,
holding that the for good cause shown tolling provision encompasses the same circumstances as the rules for excludable time under the speedy trial act 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 recognizing that in the 1993 amendments to the rules courts have been accorded the discretion to enlarge the 120day period even in the absence of showing good cause