Choice of Law: The Erie Doctrine Flashcards
What law must a federal court apply to FQ claims?
Federal courts must apply federal procedural and substantive law to claims arising under federal question jurisdiction.
And they must apply federal procedural law—but state substantive law based on the choice-of-law rules of the state where they sit—to claims arising under diversity jurisdiction.
What are the 4 abstention doctrines in federal courts?
- Pullman
- Burford
- Colorado River
- Younger
When does Pullman doctrine apply?
Resolution of unsettled state law in state court would moot federal constitutional issue
When does the Burford doctrine apply?
Injunction or declaratory judgment would interfere with complex state regulatory scheme that serves important state policy & provides timely & adequate judicial review
When does the Colorado river doctrine apply?
Pending state proceeding involving substantially same parties & issues presents exceptional circumstances that justify conserving judicial resources.
When does the Younger doctrine apply?
Injunction or declaratory judgment would interfere with pending state proceeding that involves important state interest & provides adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims
Examples of Procedural & Substantive Issues
Procedural (processes & procedures)
i) Filing deadlines
ii) Court rules & procedures
iii) Discovery practices
iv) Rules of evidence
Substantive (legal rights & duties)
i) Elements of claim or defense
ii) Burdens of proof
iii) Statutes of limitations
Unclear whether the issue is substantive or procedural:
i) whether assumption of the risk can be raised as a defense.
ii) penalizing a party for losing an appeal
When it is unclear whether an issue before the court is substantive or procedural, what must the court do?
A federal court sitting in diversity must apply state law to substantive issues and federal law to procedural issues.
When it is unclear whether an issue before the court is substantive or procedural, the court must evaluate the facts and determine if there is a conflict between state and federal law with respect to the issue.
When is state law outcome determinative?
State law is outcome determinative if the failure to apply state law would result in either:
1) forum-shopping – litigants will be encouraged to sue in federal court to take advantage of benefits not afforded in state court OR
2) inequitable administration of the laws – the application of substantially different rules in federal and state court would cause unfair outcomes.
When an issue is not clearly substantive or procedural and no federal law directly applies, the Erie Doctrine requires that federal courts sitting in diversity apply state law if:
When an issue is not clearly substantive or procedural and no federal law directly applies, Erie requires that federal courts sitting in diversity apply state law if:
(1) it would be outcome determinative—i.e., failure to apply it would result in forum-shopping or inequitable administration—and
(2) there is no contrary federal interest.
Federal-rule Analysis
When it is unclear whether an issue is substantive or procedural—e.g., penalizing a party for losing an appeal—the court must determine if there is a conflict between state and federal law.
If a conflict exists, then the federal-rule analysis provides that a valid federal rule that directly addresses the issue applies if the rule:
1) is arguably procedural AND
2) does not abridge, modify, or enlarge a substantive right.
* If the valid federal rule does in fact abridge, englarge, or modify a party’s substantive rights (e.g., the right to an appeal), then the court should apply the state rule.*
What must a court ask when the applicable state and federal laws conflict?
If the applicable state and federal laws conflict, the district court must ask whether a valid federal statute covers the disputed issue.
