De-Constitutionalizing Erie

Case: Hanna v. Plumer

Procedural History: The District Court granted summary judgment to the executor
for the plaintiff's failure to make adequate service of process, ruling that the
state rule applied based on the Supreme Court's prior precedents. The United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. Now before the Supreme
Court.

Facts: Plaintiff (from Ohio) sues on a personal injury claim a resident of MA in

MA district court. Defendant is deceased at the time of suit, and so the named
defendant is the executor. The Massachusetts rule at the time required personal
service of process on the executor of an in-state defendant, while Federal
required only that service be made on a competent adult at the residence of the
defendant. The plaintiff left process at the residence of the executor, and so
complied with the federal rule but not the state rule.

Issue: In a diversity suit in Federal court, should the service of process be

made in the manner prescribed by state law or federal law?

Holding: Ruling Reversed. It was appropriate to apply federal rule and not state
law.

Reasoning: In reaching this decision the Court stated that the "rule" in
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York that state and federal courts should reach outcomes
substantially the same was not a "talisman" and that there were more basic
principles governing Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its offspring (that is, cases
dealing with how Federal courts should apply state law). The purpose of Erie was
to 1) discourage "forum shopping" and 2) avoid inequitable administration of laws.
The current case must be viewed in this light. While the outcome of the current
case is determined by which law is applied, the rights in question are not
substantial enough to create problems of unequal protection. Furthermore, in Erie
and its offspring there was no explicit conflict between state and federal rules.
Thus, in those cases the Court held not that state rules trumped federal rules but
that the federal rules, narrowly construed, did not cover the dispute. In the
current case the federal and state laws are in direct conflict. The court has been
instructed to follow the Federal Rule in these cases and there is no
constitutional reason not to do so.
In short, outcome determinative judgments are important for deciding if a state or
federal rule applies but in the current case denying the federal rule would remove
any power whatsoever the federal courts have over their procedures.

Notes

• Rules of process substantive or procedural?

○ Ruled that they are procedural
§ Here there is a fed civil proc that dictates the practice

• Rules Enabling Act

• How could a fed rule of civ proc be substantive?

○ P234 (posting bonds) - to make the suit harder to file (discourage
lawsuits)
○ Cant file complaints without paying taxes
○ Under Hanna, these would be procedural
○ But these state policies are substantive. Social policies that the states
have. Nothing to do with the just, speedy adjudication of cases in the fed
courthouse

• In fed courts, what is purpose of fed rules of civ proc?

○ Efficient, speedy, just, adjudication
○ How does this help us in this context? Why is this rule procedural?
§ Decide whether the fed rule is entitled to prevail over a conflicting
statement rule
□ Why a proc rule is one that is designed to give you the speedy
efficient action
□ A rule requiring a jury trial - designed to give you a just
outcome
□ A rule requiring a time limit - efficient use of court system
□ But paying taxes in order to file suit is substantive, because
it does nothing to enforce the original purposed of the fed rules of civ proc.
This is where the line is drawn.