Choice of Law Question Forum

[frank galvin]

Suppose in diversity a state rule and a Federal rule are in conflict, but the conflict is related to judge-made doctrine associated with the rule. (Similar to Iqbal standard v. state standard notice pleading). Does this invite a discussion of two analyses, one under Erie and the RDA, and another under Hanna and the REA?

[Geist13]

I don't know the answer, but my guess would be that there's really no such thing of a rule distinct from its interpretation/application. Every FRCP is subject to the court's interpretation of the text. So there's no Rules Enabling Act analysis that does not implicitly include how the rule is traditionally interpreted in federal practice. Another way to think about it is that the rule is the interpretation of the rule. Thus, I would think you only need to do a Rules Enabling Act analysis. Otherwise, there would never be an instance where you wouldn't have to do both.

[blsingindisguise]

I don't know the answer, but my guess would be that there's really no such thing of a rule distinct from its interpretation/application. Every FRCP is subject to the court's interpretation of the text.

Sounds right to me. Very good question, but I don't think there's any added layer due to the fact that you have a judge-made rule vs. a statutory one.