another erie question Forum

[goosey]

our professor set up the erie test in the following way:

1. is there a conflict b/t state and fed law?
if no, then done. if yes, then..

2. is the federal law/statute codified?
if no, then the byrd test applies; if yes, then hanna

HANNA:
1. does the rule comport with the Rules Enabling Act? [basically, is this a substantive or procedural issue]
2. examine erie's twin aims: discouraging forum shopping and discouraging an inequitable administration of laws

my confusion stems from the second prong of the hanna test. Firstly, our professor told us that the fed rule will usually trump with hanna, so ppl that want the fed law will argue that hanna applies. I don't see how that can be taken from the hanna test..?

secondly, what do you do with those two considerations? I just did a practice question where the federal law would allow for the motion while the state law would not--diametrically different answers to the same question. so does this mean state law applies or fed law? I dont understand what the erie twin aims prong's purpose is...and what the answer to those questions tells you to do

[WrappedUpInBooks]

This is not the way we do it. At all. Read the E&E.

[goosey]

This is not the way we do it. At all. Read the E&E.

I dont have the E&E but I do have the glannon guide...Im about to start the erie chapter now, but Im pretty sure my professor will want to see HIS test on the exam and not glannon's

[WrappedUpInBooks]

So the way we do it is this: you can read the fed law narrowly, so that it doesn't conflict with state law, and the you apply the RDA and ask, is the state law substantive? That's where the Byrd test/Erie twin aims thing comes in.

If you read the fed law more broadly, so that it does conflict with state law, you do the REA analysis. Here you ask (under Hanna), is the fed law really/arguably procedural? It almost always passes this test, b/c the supreme court isn't likely to say oh yah, we approved this procedural rule but it's not actually procedural.

Hope that was more helpful... don't completely understand your prof's test though.

[BarbellDreams]

Yeah, goosey you're a bit far from where you need to be. Take a step back and first analyze whether you are dealig with a federal statute, FRCP or Federal Judge procedures. All three have different tests (technically there are 4 tests, but the 4th one is against the constitution and you wont be tested on it because its basically if there is a conflict the consitution wins.)

Federal Statute: Is there a conflict? Is the statute within Congressional power to make (Article 3, Necessary proper clause). If yes, apply fed law.

FRCP: Is there a conflict? If yes, (Hanna 2 test) Is FRCP arguably procedural? DOes it abridge, modify or enlarge any substantive state citizen's rights? If no to both, then apply FRCP. (Note: There has not been an FRCP that didnt meet the test to date, our prof gave us BS FRCP rules and BS state statutes to practice with though)

Fed judge procedures: Step 1 (Byrd): Is state law bound up in substantive state rights of citizens? If yes, apply state. If no, go to Step 2 (Hanna 1). Is the fed law promoting forum shopping/inequitable administartion of law? If no, apply fed. If yes, go to step 3 of Byrd: Is there coutervailing federal intrests in applying the fed law (In Byrd there was cause fed judges kinda like the 7th amendment and juries and stuff)? If yes, apply fed, if no apply state.

Thats basically it (although if you read shady grove that adds another step to the FRCP tests).

[beach_terror]

The Hanna test is: is the FRCP on point? (there are two ways to read the rule, broadly and narrowly - don't throw away points by only analyzing it one way). If it's not on point - apply state law. If it is on point - is it constitutional (i.e. does it actually regulate procedure)? A FRCP has never been found to be unconstitutional because the rules go through Congress, the Advisory Committee, etc.

The Byrd test is: 1. likelihood that apply federal law will affect the outcome of the case (you apply Guaranty Trust AND Hanna AND Byrd to this). Guaranty trust is - "the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in State court" and Hanna is the twim aims of erie. 2. federal interest in apply its rule 3. state's interest in their rule.

You apply Hanna if there is a FRCP involved and you apply Byrd if its a federal procedural law - 7th amendment right to trial by jury, for example)

[goosey]

Yeah, goosey you're a bit far from where you need to be. Take a step back and first analyze whether you are dealig with a federal statute, FRCP or Federal Judge procedures. All three have different tests (technically there are 4 tests, but the 4th one is against the constitution and you wont be tested on it because its basically if there is a conflict the consitution wins.)

Federal Statute: Is there a conflict? Is the statute within Congressional power to make (Article 3, Necessary proper clause). If yes, apply fed law.

FRCP: Is there a conflict? If yes, (Hanna 2 test) Is FRCP arguably procedural? DOes it abridge, modify or enlarge any substantive state citizen's rights? If no to both, then apply FRCP. (Note: There has not been an FRCP that didnt meet the test to date, our prof gave us BS FRCP rules and BS state statutes to practice with though)

Fed judge procedures: Step 1 (Byrd): Is state law bound up in substantive state rights of citizens? If yes, apply state. If no, go to Step 2 (Hanna 1). Is the fed law promoting forum shopping/inequitable administartion of law? If no, apply fed. If yes, go to step 3 of Byrd: Is there coutervailing federal intrests in applying the fed law (In Byrd there was cause fed judges kinda like the 7th amendment and juries and stuff)? If yes, apply fed, if no apply state.

Thats basically it (although if you read shady grove that adds another step to the FRCP tests).

bolded is basically the answer to my question.

And thanks to whoever clarified why fed rules would always trump in hanna, because that was my other question.

it seems like everyone else was taught this so differently than we were...

[beach_terror]

Just to further clarify, the forum shopping applies if they plaintiff would select the the forum before filing suit... and the inequitable administration comes after the judgment is rendered. There's quite a few rules that wouldn't lead to forum shopping but would lead to inequitable administration the laws. If you have one that splits, then I'd chime in with Guaranty Trust to reinforce that the court should apply the state rule, but still come across with the counterargument that the federal court has interest in applying its rule if possible (I mean, come on, the constitution is a living breathing document!)

[goosey]

Just to further clarify, the forum shopping applies if they plaintiff would select the the forum before filing suit... and the inequitable administration comes after the judgment is rendered. There's quite a few rules that wouldn't lead to forum shopping but would lead to inequitable administration the laws. If you have one that splits, then I'd chime in with Guaranty Trust to reinforce that the court should apply the state rule, but still come across with the counterargument that the federal court has interest in applying its rule if possible (I mean, come on, the constitution is a living breathing document!)

awesome thanks.

so I am in a civ pro mess..would you happen to know what the difference is between r. 26(g) and r. 37 sanctions for discovery? I know that r. 26(g) is triggered by signature, but what kinds of things does it apply to? is the only difference that 37 is more extreme?

[jwmalone87]

Massive bump...

If there is a FRCP at issue, obviously your first step would be that if it's sufficiently broad to control the issue, then "Hannah 2" and REA should apply.

But say that there is a 'narrow construction' argument and that both the FRCP and the state practice can co-exist. Does analysis ALWAYS end there, or do you still go towards a Rules of Decision Act analysis (Byrd, Twin Aims, etc)? I can't really figure why the analysis would still go towards this direction (if there's no conflict, I thought state rule could just apply), but in Freer's treatise, he says to still do the RDA analysis. I've heard this elsewhere as well. But again, I can't understand why.

Any help?