Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiff sued Defendant in federal court through diversity jurisdiction and served Defendant according to federal rules instead of state rules. Defendant moved for summary judgment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A federal court ruling over a case under diversity jurisdiction must apply applicable federal rules of civil procedure, unless their application would encourage forum shopping or the inequitable administration of law.
Erie and its offspring cast no doubt on the long-recognized power of Congress to prescribe housekeeping rules for federal courts even though some of those rules will inevitably differ from comparable state rules.View Full Point of Law
Hanna (Petitioner), a citizen of Ohio, suffered injuries in a car accident in Massachusetts allegedly caused by Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen. Petitioner sued Osgood’s estate (Respondent) in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts under diversity jurisdiction. The Respondent moved for summary judgment because the Petitioner served the Respondent pursuant to the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(d)(1) instead of Massachusetts law.
In a civil case, brought into federal court under diversity jurisdiction, should the court rely on the state’s service of process law instead of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(d)(1)?
No, the court should apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(d)(1). The case is reversed.
Justice Harlan agreed with the outcome but argued that the Court oversimplified the purpose of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins by listing only two aims. Whereas the outcome determinative test from Guaranty Trust Co. v. York favors state law, the Court’s opinion favors federal law. He argued instead in favor of a middle ground.
The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that precedent set in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins and Guaranty Trust Co. v. York prevented the application of Rule 4(d)(1). Instead, the Court clarified that the outcome determinative test of York must be considered in conjunction with the twin aims of Erie, to discourage forum shopping and the inequitable administration of law. Here, application of Rule 4(d)(1) would not trigger either aim because its application did not sufficiently alter the enforcement of a substantial state right. The Court further clarified that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure fall within the power of Congress to govern the practice and pleadings of federal courts.