Also known as: FRCP 3 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 · Rule 3 · FRCP Rule 3 · Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure providing that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
Fatima Flores filed her complaint against Frontier Capital in federal court on the last day of the state limitations period. The court clerk accepted the filing immediately. Under Federal Rule 3 the action was commenced at that moment even though service occurred later.
Fernando Farrell told his lawyer he intended to testify falsely at trial. The lawyer refused to file an amended complaint containing the false allegations. Federal Rule 3 commencement still occurred when the original complaint was filed, but the lawyer's refusal preserved ethical duties without affecting the filing date.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Farah Fox filed her diversity complaint in federal court before the state deadline expired. The marshal did not serve the defendant until after the period ran. Federal Rule 3 fixed commencement at filing, yet the court applied state law to decide whether that filing tolled the limitations period.
Fusion Power filed a class complaint in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. State law tied commencement to service for limitations purposes. The court examined whether Federal Rule 3 displaced the state rule when the complaint was filed but service was delayed.
Flora Ford filed her complaint in federal court within the state limitations window. State law required service within sixty days to commence the action. The court held that the state rule governed because it was part of the substantive limitations scheme, overriding Federal Rule 3 for tolling purposes.
Frederick Ferguson filed his diversity personal-injury complaint on the final day permitted by state law. After verdict the appellate court applied a state standard for reviewing damages. Federal Rule 3 established the commencement date, but the court still applied state substantive limits on the award.
No. When a state statute ties commencement to service as part of its substantive limitations scheme, that state rule controls instead of Federal Rule 3.
Federal Rule 3 deems the action commenced upon filing, but state law may still bar the claim if service is an integral part of the state limitations rule.
Federal Rule 3 supplies the federal procedural rule for commencement, yet state limitations rules that are outcome-determinative and substantive still apply under Erie analysis.
No. When the state rule forms part of the substantive limitations policy, the federal court must apply it even though Federal Rule 3 would otherwise govern commencement.
…a Kansas statute of limitations provided that an action was deemed commenced when service was made on the defendant. Despite Federal Rule 3 which provides that an action commences with the filing of the complaint, the Court held that for purposes of the Kansas statute of limitations a diversity tort action commenced only when…