The Latest On Erie Questions

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:41:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

All lawyers remember their first encounter with Erie v. Tompkins, a staple of the first year of law school. Erie still reverberates for substantive reasons as well. Via Volokh, we see that that the Supreme Court has handed down the latest on Erie questions in Shady Grove v Allstate (PDF), though the Court's fractured opinion (with interesting alliances) leaves things quite muddled :

JUSTICE SCALIA announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II–A, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B and II–D, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, and an opinion with respect to Part II–C, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join. [. . .] JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. [. . .] JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.

I'll try and provide a cogent analysis later today for the 2 readers interested. I happen to like these kinds of cases.

< Is the Public Option Fight Over? | The New "Progressive" "Non-Triangulation" On Off Shore Drilling >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Latest On Erie Questions | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

BTD (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by DFLer on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:09:44 AM EST

Only two comments does not necessarily mean only two interested readers.

Trying to learn here, not post!

HTML Link (none / 0) (#1)
by Dan the Man on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:54:41 AM EST

here

Ah, yes. (none / 0) (#2)
by scribe on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:00:51 AM EST

Diversity jurisdiction.

Substantive v. procedural. (A distinction both meaningless and wholly meaningful at the same time. The kind of thing lawyers billing by the hour for paying clients could only love.)

My last trial was a diversity case. It was kinda funny to watch the judge look down his nose at us (me) for bringing a mere contract dispute into the august halls of federal court, moreso when I won.

I gotta take some time to read this one.

I am quite interested (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:15:03 AM EST

but I can tell this is going to require some careful reading. . .

Scalia being Scalia, in an interesting way: (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:34:21 AM EST

[W]hile the dissent does indeed artificially narrow the scope of §901(b) by finding that it pursues only substantive policies, that is not the central difficulty of the dissent's position. The central difficulty is that even artificial narrowing cannot render §901(b) compatible with Rule 23. Whatever the policies they pursue, they flatly contradict each other. Allstate asserts (and the dissent implies, see post, at 3, 11) that we can (and must) interpret Rule 23 in a manner that avoids overstepping its authorizing stat ute.7 If the Rule were susceptible of two meanings--one that would violate §2072(b) and another that would not-- we would agree. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U. S. 815, 842, 845 (1999); cf. Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U. S. 497, 503-504 (2001). But it is not. Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal civil proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule's prerequisites are met.

Thus, Scalia ignore's the purpose of the New York statute (which is not nearly as ambiguous as he claims IMO). Congress will have to respond to this, I think. The result just seems wrong.


First blush (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:36:21 AM EST

I think Stevens' opinion is the actual controlling one. He's the 5th vote.


That could be (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:37:08 AM EST

I have a tendency to skip the syllabus on first reading.


This rule in particular (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:41:59 AM EST

"The concurrence would decide this case on the basis, not that Rule 23 is procedural, but that the state law it displaces is procedural, in the sense that it does not "functionas a part of the State's definition of substantive rights and remedies." Post, at 1. A state procedural rule is not preempted, according to the concurrence, so long as it is "so bound up with," or "sufficiently intertwined with," a substantive state-law right or remedy "that it defines the scope of that substantive right or remedy," post, at 4, 13.

This analysis squarely conflicts with Sibbach, which established the rule we apply. The concurrence contends that Sibbach did not rule out its approach, but that is not so. Recognizing the impracticability of a test that turns on the idiosyncrasies of state law, Sibbach adopted and applied a rule with a single criterion: whether the Federal Rule "really regulates procedure." 312 U. S., at 14.9"


: It's hard to disagree with Stevens (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:44:07 AM EST

on this point:

In our federalist system, Congress has not mandated that federal courts dictate to state legislatures the form that their substantive law must take. And were federal courts to ignore those portions of substantive state law that operate as procedural devices, it could in many instances limit the ways that sovereign States may define their rights and remedies. When a State chooses to use a traditionally procedural vehicle as a means of defining the scope of substantive rights or remedies, federal courts must recognize and respect that choice.

OK, you're right (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:41:06 AM EST

Stevens appears to soften Scalia's hatchet job.


BTW (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:36:23 AM EST

This case highlights the stupidity of federalism.


Footnote #2 in the Ginsburg dissent (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:01:15 AM EST

seems to lay out the territory:

JUSTICE STEVENS stakes out common ground. . .: "[F]ederal rules," he observes, "must be interpreted with some degree of `sensitivity to important state interests and regulatory policies,' . . . and applied to diversity cases against the background of Congress' command that such rules not alter substantive rights and with consideration of `the degree to which the Rule makes the character and result of the federal litigation stray from the course it would follow in state courts,' Hanna [v. Plumer], 380 U. S. [460, 473 (1965)]." Ante, at 3. (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). See also ante, at 4 ("A `state procedural rule, though undeniably procedural in the ordinary sense of the term' may exist `to influence substantive outcomes,' . . . and may in some instances become so bound up with the state-created right or remedy that it defines the scope of that substantive right or remedy." (some internal quotation marks omitted)); ante, at 5 ("When a State chooses to use a traditionally procedural vehicle as a means of defining the scope of substantive rights or remedies, federal courts must recognize and respect that choice."). Nevertheless, JUSTICE STEVENS sees no reason to read Rule 23 with restraint in this particular case; the Federal Rule preempts New York's damages limitation, in his view, because §901(b) is "a procedural rule that is not part of New York's substantive law." Ante, at 1. This characterization of §901(b) does not mirror reality, as I later explain. See infra, at 17-24. But a majority of this Court, it bears emphasis, agrees that Federal Rules should be read with moderation in diversity suits to accommodate important state concerns.

Oh, at least three readers (none / 0) (#13)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:23:50 AM EST

counting me.

Do i need to know this? Just renewed (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:42:21 PM EST

by "inactive" status w/state bar.


Only you know (none / 0) (#15)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:44:44 PM EST

what you need to know. Or what you want to know.


: A judicious reply. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:18:49 PM EST