Hannibal wrote:ahduth wrote:sundance95 wrote:Hannibal wrote:There was actually no rule you could take away from Shady Grove in that way. Four votes said you only have to look at the federal rule in the test, while the concurrence said you have to look at whether the state rule of procedure is bound up with substantive rights.
Hmm. I was reading II-A which I thought is the majority opinion? I'll have to think about this some more, but it seems to me that if II-A has five votes then Rule 23 could not be abridged by any state law.
Ya, II-A has five votes, and is riddled with FRCP-supremacy language:Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal civil proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule's prerequisites are met. We cannot contort its text, even to avert a collision with state law that might render it invalid.
at 130 S.Ct. 1431, 1442 (their emphasis).
I don't read that as supremacy language, I read that as language emphasizing the difference between FRCP 23 and the state law.
Isn't that the dissent position though?