FRCP 4 v. KA law.
Yes, outcome determinative, but isn’t there a federal interest in applying FRCP 4?
REA—“federal rule cannot enlarge, abridge, or modify a state right.”
Looks like FRCP 4 would
enlarge the right to sue here.
BUT, Supreme Court accepted KA statute.
Federal rule doesn’t
govern—it only governs commencement of actions in federal court for purpose of running of
time to answer and serve, but not statute of limitations.
NOT A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT
(they do this b/c if FRCP 4 applies, it would be invalidated here, don’t want to invalidate a
Hanna v. Plumer, 1965
Service of process as per FRCP v. MA law, which requires in-hand notice.
, MA Δ should win.
Rules Enabling Act “prescribing the manner in which a Δ is to be notified that a suit
has been instituted against him relates to the “practice and procedure of the district courts.” Long-
recognized power of Congress to prescribe
housekeeping rules for federal courts
some of them will inevitably differ from comparable state rules. Uniformity in federal courts.
It’s outcome determinative, but, only in a limited sense.
Twin aims of Erie
avoidance of forum shopping, and protecting against inequitable administration of the
Not the kind of thing that πs care about in bringing suit. Doesn’t affect
the underlying rights, unless you mess up.
In that sense, every procedural rule is
outcome determinative, if you mess it up.
But, there is a FRCP that covers the issue here, as per RDA.
End of inquiry.
Does the Federal Rule cover the case?
Regarding service of process, here, it
Does it conflict w/ the state rule?
Here it does.
If it didn’t, you’d apply both.
Is the rule proper under the Rules Enabling Act?
Then, it’s procedural.
Sibbech v. Wilson
presumption of validity—FRCP have been vetted extensively.
§2072 (b) Does it enlarge, modify, abridge a right?
Court here said it
didn’t enlarge the right (though it kind of did) and enforced it.
What’s left of Byrd
Weighing of federal interest.
The poetic concurring opinion of Harlan in Hanna
He would have overruled Ragan because he focussed on the traditional view that a statute
of limitations is by definition procedural
He is focussed on the idea of "Federal Creep"