Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The court, however, need not reach this issue because even if Defendants were properly served, this action is barred by the statute of limitations. 4 . All parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations is three years. Because a federal court in a diversity action based on state negligence law must apply state law to determine when an action is commenced for purposes of the statute of limitations, Wolfberg v. Greenwood Development Corp., 868 F.Supp. 132 (D.S.C. 1994), the present action was commenced, if at all, more than three years after Plaintiff's accident. See S.C.R.C.P. 4(d)(8) ("Service [by certified mail] is effective upon the date of delivery as shown on the return receipt.”); Dandy v. American Laundry Machinery Inc., 301 S.C. 24, 27, 389 S.E.2d 866, 868 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The court notes that the Supreme Court of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service (B) recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act (C) holding that if service done by certified mail action commenced upon receipt of summons and complaint (D) holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail (E) holding that service of a subpoena via certified mail is sufficient under rule 45 particularly when defendant does not deny actual receipt
Output (English): holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service