...summons." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). When a defendant clearly knows a complaint is directed against her, Plaintiff's mistake in using a misnomer is not good cause to refuse service. Neal v. Cochran, Cherry, Givens & Smith, P.C., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2008) ("Plaintiffs' obvious misnomer of a.... . . Defendant . . . does not constitute good cause so as to relieve the Defendant of [its] duty [under Rule 4(d)(1)]."); cf. Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 208 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that an amendment to add a new party to correct a misnomer is..., see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), a misnomer in a complaint is not a valid ground to vacate a default judgment and dismiss the claims against that defendant. See Kosson Architectural Aluminum...