and was served the Corrected Amended Complaint on or around October 11, 2013. Pis.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Partial Dismissal [Dkt. #42], Nor do plaintiffs contest the applicable statutes of limitations. Id. However, plaintiffs contend that filing the initial Complaint, which named MPO Williams in the caption, commenced the litigation against her and tolled the applicable statutes of limitations. Id. I disagree. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 states: “A civil action i 70 (D.C.1980) (en banc) (“Super.Ct.Civ.R. 3 requires only the filing of a complaint to commence an action and thereby toll the statute of limitations.”), it is Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, which governs service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4; see, e.g., Henderson, 517 U.S. at 672, 116 S.Ct. 1638 (<HOLDING>). Rule 4(m) provides, in relevant part: “If a
holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures holding that rule 4k2 does apply to admiralty cases holding that rule 4 displaced service provision in the admiralty act recognizing that although provision of municipal service is not fundamental right inequitable provision of that service is subject to equal protection analysis