Top Law Schools

so when a fed ct is sitting in diversity, it must apply state substantive rights. but what happens when a fed ct has a case with multiple claims--one federal and 2 state--there is no diversity but has jdx over the state claims through supplemental jdx--does erie apply in such a case? and if not, what law would apply

It would apply Erie to any state claims regardless of what jurisdictional scheme got them to fed court, unless of course that scheme is $1331 which means they aren't really state claims.

cavebat2000 wrote:It would apply Erie to any state claims regardless of what jurisdictional scheme got them to fed court, unless of course that scheme is $1331 which means they aren't really state claims.

so even if a court is not sitting in diversity, erie still applies [unless its 1331]?

goosey wrote:so when a fed ct is sitting in diversity, it must apply state substantive rights. but what happens when a fed ct has a case with multiple claims--one federal and 2 state--there is no diversity but has jdx over the state claims through supplemental jdx--does erie apply in such a case? and if not, what law would apply

Still apply Erie to see if substantive, and if state law needs to be applied.

Whenever people start the statement of an Erie analysis with "a federal court, sitting in diversity..." they're doing it wrong. It doesn't matter how the state law claim got before the court.

RVP11 wrote:
Still apply Erie to see if substantive, and if state law needs to be applied.

Whenever people start the statement of an Erie analysis with "a federal court, sitting in diversity..." they're doing it wrong. It doesn't matter how the state law claim got before the court.

this is clearly where things went awry. thanks for the clarification.

i had the "sitting in diversity" in my head from the glannon guide--he needs to change that wording because its confusing

Without going into Erie too much, Erie requires substantive state law to apply on state claims. If it is a state claim that got to a federal court through removal, diversity, or supplemental jurisdiction, Erie still applies.

A claim getting to the court under $1331 depends on whether that claim is controlled by a federal law itself or whether the state claim requires the resolution of a federal question in order to be resolved (substantial federal element doctrine). If there is a substantial federal element that must be resolved before the state claim can be resolved, even though its $1331 jurisdiction, once the federal law issue is resolved Erie would apply to whatever is left of the state claim.

Basically, if the claim is state claim, apply Erie analysis.

*edit* Looks like you got it.