Hanna v. Plumer

380 U.S. 460 (1965)

What's Going On?

Plaintiff seeks review of a decision upholding the dismissal of a federal diversity action for failure to comply with a state procedural rule regarding service of process in a case arising out of an automobile accident.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

Hanna – injured in an automobile accident[, citizen of Ohio].

Defendant :

Plumer – citizen of Massachusetts, executor of the estate of [Louise Plumer Osgood,] who died in an automobile accident with Plaintiff.

Facts:

Plaintiff, [a citizen of Ohio] was injured in a car accident. In a federal diversity action, Plaintiff sued the estate of [Louise Plumer Osgood,] a driver involved in the accident. Plaintiff served Defendant Plumer, the executor of the estate [of Louise Plumer Osgood, and a citizen of Massachusetts], by leaving the summons and complaint with a competent adult[, Plaintiff's wife,] at Defendant's residence. Service of process in this manner is in accordance with FRCP 4(d)(1). [This rule has since been changed to Rule 4(e)(2)]. Massachusetts law, however, required an executor to be served directly. The district and appellate courts dismissed the case due to failure to comply with the Massachusetts procedural law. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

Must a federal court refuse to apply a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in a diversity case where that rule would alter state-created procedural rules?

Decision:

No. The policy behind the Erie rule, which held that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases, is to discourage forum-shopping, to avoid the inequitable administration of law, and to prevent the outcome of litigation from being determined by whether the suit was brought in federal or state court. When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure covers a situation, it is clear that a court must apply the Federal Rule. This conclusion is implied by the Rules Enabling Act, and the Erie rule. Under the Constitution and the Rules Enabling Act, Congress has the power to prescribe procedural rules for federal courts, even though some of those rules will inevitably differ from comparable state rules. FRCP 4(d)(1), was properly adopted in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution to govern service of process in diversity actions, and relates to the practice and procedure of the federal district courts. In this case, there is little risk of forum-shopping or outcome-determination because adherence to the state rule would not wholly bar recovery; rather, it would have resulted only in altering the way in which process was served. Additionally, allowing Defendant's wife to accept service in his place does not alter the mode of enforcement of state-created rights in a manner so substantial that the equal protection problems alluded to in the Erie opinion would be raised. Reversed.

Basic Rule:

Federal courts should apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in cases where federal jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction.

Concurrence:

The Erie opinion addressed more than forum-shopping and the avoidance of the inequitable administration of law. Erie addresses the need for harmony between the state and federal judicial systems. The tests based on the avoidance of forum-shopping and outcome determination, developed by the courts to determine whether federal or state law should apply in a given action, have often fallen prey to oversimplification. The focal point of any test to determine the applicability of state or federal law should be an inquiry into whether the choice of rule would substantially affect those primary decisions respecting human conduct which the constitutional system leaves to state regulation. If so, Erie and the Constitution require that the state rule prevail.

Terms:

Rules Enabling Act :

28 U.S.C. § 2071. The act granting power to the judicial branch to create the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other federal procedural rules.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us