WHERE WE ARE & WHAT WE’RE DOING

1. WHERE WE ARE & WHAT WE’RE DOING • Overlapping jurisdiction • Cases arising under state law • Concurrent state & federal jurisdiction • Diversity cases • What law applies?

2. HYPOTHETICALS • Diversity case • State law • WA statute for personal injury cases • Not plead damages amount

3. BLACK LETTER LAW • Hanna v. Plumer • If federal rule on point • Apply • Unless violates Rules Enabling Act • And if constitutional • If federal practice not in codified rule: • Apply federal practice unless • Encourage forum shopping or • Result in inequitable administration of law

4. BLACK LETTER LAW • Byrd v. Blue Ridge • If state law • doesn’t determine outcome • isn’t bound up with substantive rts/obligations • Federal court applies balancing test • Value of uniformity v. state’s interest

5. TAKEAWAYSHanna on The Erie Problem Diversity Cases What law applies “Substantive Law” State Law Applies Arguably Procedural” Law Federal Rule (Statute) on Point “Pure Erie” No Fed rule on point Apply federal rule Unless violates REA + If constitutional Apply federal rule unless 1) encourage forum shopping or 2) result in “inequitable admin. of laws”

6. NOT-SO-HYPOTHETICALS • Burlington Northern • Diversity case • State law • 10% penalty for unsuccessful appeal • Federal law • RAP 38 • Frivolous appeals • Just damages & single or double costs

7. NOT-SO-HYPOTHETICALS • Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh, p. 297 • Diversity case • State case law • Refuse to enforce forum selection clauses • Federal law • 28 U.S.C. 1404 Venue transfer • (pre-Carnival Cruise lines)

8. NOT-SO-HYPOTHETICALS • Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, p. 297 • Diversity case • State statute • Review jury verdicts, order new trials • If “deviate materially from reasonable compensation” • Federal law • Rule 59 • Reexamination Clause

9. TAKEAWAYS • Two tracks • Codified “rule” on point • Pure Erie • Rules Enabling Act Analysis • When is a “rule” on point?

10. TAKEAWAYS • Significance of Gasperini • Accomodates state interests • 1st Case since Byrd • Narrow view of federal law on point • Relies on Byrd test

11. ERIEUneasy Federalism • 1842– 1934 Federal law dominates • Swift v. Tyson • displaces state judge-made common law • 1934-1958 State law strikes back • Erie RR v. Tompkins • State substantive law displaces federal common law • York, S.Ct. cases apply state law, p. 280 • s/l, choice of law rules, etc. • 1958- Return of the Federals • Byrd • Hanna • Burlington, Stewart, etc. • Impact of Gasperini?