Erie Doctrine

This post is intended entirely to help me understand this topic by trying to explain it in a semi-cogent fashion (but I'm gonna go ahead and capitalize things that shouldn't be capitalized for emphasis- that doesn't count against my cogency).  It somehow manages to be simple and incredibly difficult at the same time.  Here goes.

The first rule of the Erie Doctrine is that we don't talk about Federal Common Law (because there is none).

The second rule of the Erie Doctrine is that we DON'T talk about Federal Common Law (this is very important).

There IS Federal Statutory Law.  When seeking Federal jurisdiction because you are applying a Federal statute, then GREAT, the Erie Doctrine doesn't apply.

However, you can also get Federal jurisdiction if you and the opposing party have:

1.  Diversity of citizenship (you live in different states).
and
2.  A disagreement worth more than $75,000.

But once you get into the (Federal) District Court, which law applies?  The Erie Railroad case from somewhere in the 1800's says that the answer is the STATE law of whatever jurisdiction the court is in.  Huzzah, this seems easy!  And beneficial!  If the same law applies no matter what your forum (Federal or State) we successfully stop forum shopping AND ensure uniformity in application of the law.

BUT WAIT BUT WAIT

There's no Federal Common Law (CRAP, I forgot not to talk about it) but there IS an entire BOOK of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  NO NO NO BAD BAD.  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were written in order to ensure uniformity across all the Federal Courts, but if they have to apply State law in diversity cases it ENTIRELY DEFEATS THE POINT.

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1940-somethingerother)- established the "outcome determination" test.  Would applying a Federal procedural rule rather than that of the State significantly change the outcome of the case?  (Of course, you can look at ANY rule in such a way that it significantly changes the outcome of a case, so Guaranty Trust RUINED EVERYTHING)

This analysis continues until 1958.  Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc.  Does Byrd get a jury trial in Federal Court when the State procedural law would give him a judge trial?  SEVENTH AMENDMENT TRUMP CARD!  Sorry, Guaranty Trust.   Guess you aren't as cool as you thought you were...

But now where do we stand?!

Hanna v. Plumer- NEW TEST.  TWO PATHS.  COLLECT THEM ALL.

Hanna path 1- If the issue is Federal procedural common-law ("But there IS no Federal common-law," you say.  SHHHHHH)  then we must adapt the test to suit the goals of Erie. Think about what the plaintiff would do BEFORE the litigation commences if they knew about both the Federal and State options.  Would they be driven to forum shop?  Then it is outcome determinative and State law wins.  See how easy that was?

Hanna path 2- There is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in place and a State law is conflicting.  In this case, Erie doesn't apply.  Ever.  Don't even start thinking about it.  Federal Rules trump.    

Yaaaay Hanna.  Now everything makes sense OH WAIT WE AREN'T DONE YET.

What if, for example, we don't know if the Federal rule and the State rule are conflicting?  I know, it should seem obvious, right?  RIGHT?  But noooooooooooooo.

In Shady Grove Orthopedics v. Allstate, NY law said that no class action could include punitive damages.  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely detail the way in which class actions can be certified.  IF the class action is certified by the Fed. R. Civ. Pro but would then be IMMEDIATELY shot down by NY's procedural rule tossing out class actions that involve punitive damages, do the Federal and State laws conflict here?!  The Supreme Court gave us a rousing answer of "no-ish" in a plurality opinion that substantially changes nothing but that puts a lot more focus on figuring out what the heck the legislature meant when establishing a new procedural law.

That's what I've got so far.  I'm sure this is entirely wrong.  I'll revise later.