DAVID J. WAXSE, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's oral motion regarding whether Plaintiff must serve Defendants with the Fourth Amended Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff made this oral motion at the March 7, 2002 Pretrial Conference. In its March 4, 2002 Memorandum and Order, the Court had instructed Plaintiff to serve Defendants with his Fourth Amended Complaint within ten days of the date of its Order. See doc. 243.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a) provides that every pleading subsequent to the original complaint shall be served upon each of the parties. Rule 5(b) sets forth the method for making such service. Rule 5(a), however, states that "[n]o service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against them shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of summons in Rule 4."
In light of these provisions, Plaintiff is required to serve the Fourth Amended Complaint against any defendant in the manner provided for in Rule 4 to the extent Plaintiff contends that (1) the particular defendant is in default for failure to appear, and (1) the Fourth Amended Complaint asserts a new or additional claim for relief against the particular defendant.
If Plaintiff determines that service against a defendant should be made in accordance with Rule 4 and he determines that he needs additional time to effectuate such service, the Court will entertain a motion for extension of time to do so. The Court suggests, however, that, before Plaintiff expend the time in attempting service under Rule 4, he examine any statute of limitations issues that may be present with respect to those defendants that Plaintiff has not previously obtained service on.
This action was filed on June 19, 1998, and relates to alleged representations made by Defendants to Plaintiff in connection with his purchase of certain stock in 1996 and 1997. The Magistrate Judge found in his March 5, 2002, Report and Recommendation (doc. 244) that Plaintiff had not previously obtained service on eight Defendants against whom Plaintiff sought the entry of default. The Magistrate Judge questions whether the statute of limitations on any claims asserted against those Defendants may have already run.
IT IS SO ORDERED.