Erie 2 Flashcards
Walker rule
If FRCP not sufficiently broad to create unavoidable direct conflict, the Hanna analysis does not apply. Instead look to twin aims of Erie and apply state substantive law
Walker holding
Rule 3 is not as broad as plaintiff claims and does not toll the state SoL, so state SoL should be applied
Walker facts
Action barred by state SoL because action commenced on service of process but Rule 3 says action commenced upon filing
Walker reason 1
Rule 3 just says when commenced and not intended to toll state SoL, state statute substantive decision with policy aims so can exist side by side and no Hanna analysis, FRCP says nothing about service
Walker reason 2
twin aims of Erie control. probably wouldn’t lead to forum shopping but would lead to inequitable admin
Walker reason 3
If different outcomes inequitable admin, then not really independent prong
Walker reason 4
outcome determinative but not at onset
Counterargument for Walker rule being substantive
limited right to recover and SoL part of that right itsefl
Gasperini rul
If state rule is both substantive and procedural, may be possible to give effect to substantive thrust of the rule under Erie without altering federal scheme under Byrd
Gasperini Hanna/York analysis
test is not mechanical, guided by twin aims, Erie would preclude recovery significantly larger than would be in state court
Byrd analysis in Gasperini
abuse of discretion standard for federal courts of appeal is reoncilable with 7th amendment, unlike Byrd can accomodate both
Scalia gasperini dissent
Rulr 59 broad enough that direct collision so Hanna applies and must apply Fed rule (no Erie q)
Shady Grove rule
if a federalrule governs only the matter and the means by which rights enforced, it is valid under REA. If it alters rules of decision by which courts will adjudicate those rights, it is not
the shocks the conscience standard for review came from
Federal common law
Binding part of Shady Grove
direct collision under the Hanna test
The Scalia plurality in Shady Grove says
not the substantive or procedural nature of the state law, but the nature of the Federal Rule that determines its validity.
Scalia shady grove plurality says
Valid regardless of its incidental effect on state-created substantive rights; divergence from state law with forum shopping consequences is the inevitable (perhaps intended) result of a uniform system of federal procedure
Shady Grove Stevens plurality says
If a federal rule displaces a state rule that is “procedural” in the ordinary sense of the term, but sufficiently interwoven with the scope of a substantive right or remedy, there would be an Enabling Act problem, and the federal rule would have to give way
Stevens plurality says substantive purpose of state law must be __
Substantive purpose of state law has to be much clearer to displace a federal rule
