The interpretation of the Rule of Decision Act (RDA) (28 U.S.C 1652) given in Swift v.

Tyson, that federal courts are free to apply their own common law while in diversity in place of the forum states common law, was overturned by the decision in Erie v. Thompkins. The new interpretation has held that when federal courts are sitting in diversity they need to apply state common law as well as state statutes, however the necessary and proper clause of the US Constitution (article 1 8) grants congress the power to, inter alia, create all laws necessary and proper to constitute tribunals inferior to the US Supreme Court. In the Rules Enabling Act (REA) (28 U.S.C. 2072) congress exercised this power in permitting the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure; which in turn led to the creation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) which allows the Supreme Court to create rules that govern the civil procedure of federal courts even those sitting in diversity. However, in the REA(b) it specifically states that the rules the Supreme Court creates may not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. The quartet known as the Erie Doctrine serves as an analysis of when the court will apply federal law or state law, and the heart of the token case is the discouragement of forum shopping and the avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.
Is the federal rule applicable? In other words: Is the FRCP sufficiently broad to cover the issue in dispute while not offending the aims of Erie to discourage forum shopping and promote equitable administration of he law?

Possibly / No
(its a grey area like SOL)

Yes
Hannas main holding: Apply the federal rule if it is valid

Is the state rule a Form or Method of enforcing state created rights? OR Does the rule create a substantive right?

Rule is valid if it is arguable procedural, as long as it doesnt abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right indicated under the REA 28 U.S.C. 1652(b). If it doesnt then it complies with the REA and US Constitutions Necessary and Proper Clause. -The rule has always been Yes its valid, EVEN if it is outcome determinative, so USE FEDERAL LAW

Creates a substantive right USE STATE LAW

It is a form or method of enforcing a right BALANCE THE FOLLOWING:

Byrd Federal Countervailing interests Test(For federal law) The federal court strives for unity, but that is a weak argument on its own. Does the federal court have some stronger interest like that it is constitutionally based? Byrd considered Constitutional rights to jury trial which outweighed outcome determinacy by itself.

Vs

York Outcome determinative modified by Hanna Test (For state law) If the outcome would influence Ps choice of forum or would create unfair discrimination, it is outcome determinative. The statute of limitations is very outcome determinative if it has already run under the state law but not the federal rule.

Best argument wins!