Hanna v. Plumer/Opinion of the Court

The question to be decided is whether, in a civil action where the jurisdiction of the United States district court is based upon diversity of citizenship between the parties, service of process shall be made in the manner prescribed by state law or that set forth in Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed her complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming damages in excess of $10,000 for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident in South Carolina, allegedly caused by the negligence of one Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen deceased at the time of the filing of the complaint. Respondent, Mrs. Osgood's executor and also a Massachusetts citizen, was named as defendant. On February 8, service was made by leaving copies of the summons and the complaint with respondent's wife at his residence, concededly in compliance with Rule 4(d)(1), which provides:

'The summons and complaint shall be served together. The     plaintiff shall furnish the person making service with such      copies as are necessary. Service shall be made as follows:

'(1) Upon an individual other than an infant or an     incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the summons and      of the complaint to him personally or by leaving copies      thereof at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with      some person of suitable age and discretion then residing      therein *  *  * .'

Respondent filed his answer on February 26, alleging, inter alia, that the action could not be maintained because it had been brought 'contrary to and in violation of the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed.) Chapter 197, Section 9.' That section provides:

'Except as provided in this chapter, an executor or     administrator shall not be held to answer to an action by a      creditor of the decrased which is not commenced within one      year from the time of his giving bond for the performance of      his trust, or to such an action which is commenced within      said year unless before the expiration thereof the writ in      such action has been served by delivery in hand upon such      executor or administrator or service thereof accepted by him      or a notice stating the name of the estate, the name and      address of the creditor, the amount of the claim and the      court in which the action has been brought has been filed in      the proper registry of probate. * *  * ' Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., c.      197, § 9 (1958).

On October 17, 1963, the District Court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, citing Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520, and Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079, in support of its conclusion that the adequacy of the service was to be measured by § 9, with which, the court held, petitioner had not complied. On appeal, petitioner admitted noncompliance with § 9, but argued that Rule 4(d)(1) defines the method by which service of process is to be effected in diversity actions. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, finding that '(r)elatively recent amendments (to § 9) evince a clear legislative purpose to require personal notification within the year,' concluded that the conflict of state and federal rules was over 'a substantive rather than a procedural matter,' and unanimously affirmed. 331 F.2d 157. Because of the threat to the goal of uniformity of federal procedure posed by the decision below, we granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 813, 85 S.Ct. 52, 13 L.Ed.2d 27.

We conclude that the adoption of Rule 4(d)(1), designed to control service of process in diversity actions, neither exceeded the congressional mandate embodied in the Rules Enabling Act nor transgressed constitutional bounds, and that the Rule is therefore the standard against which the District Court should have measured the adequacy of the service. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (1958 ed.), provides, in pertinent part:

'The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by     general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and      motions, and the practice and procedure of the district      courts of the United States in civil actions.

'Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any     substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by      jury *  *  * .'

Under the cases construing the scope of the Enabling Act, Rule 4(d)(1) clearly passes muster. Prescribing the manner in which a defendant is to be notified that a suit has been instituted against him, it relates to the 'practice and procedure of the district courts.' Cf. Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U.S. 435, 439, 26 L.Ed. 580.

'The test must be whether a rule really regulates procedure,     the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties      recognized by substantive law and for justly administering      remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them.'      Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 14, 61 S.Ct. 422, 426,     85 L.Ed. 479.

In Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 66 S.Ct. 242, 90 L.Ed. 185, this Court upheld Rule 4(f), which permits service of a summons anywhere within the State (and not merely the district) in which a district court sits:

'We think that Rule 4(f) is in harmony with the Enabling Act     *  *  *. Undoubtedly most alterations of the rules of practice and procedure may and often do     affect the rights of litigants. Congress' prohibition of any     alteration of substantive rights of litigants was obviously      not addressed to such incidental effects as necessarily      attend the adoption of the prescribed new rules of procedure      upon the rights of litigants who, agreeably to rules of      practice and procedure, have been brought before a court      authorized to determine their rights. Sibbach v. Wilson &     Co., 312 U.S. 1, 11-14, 61 S.Ct. 422, 425-427, 85 L.Ed. 479.     The fact that the application of Rule 4(f) will operate to      subject petitioner's rights to adjudication by the district      court for northern Mississippi will undoubtedly affect those      rights. But it does not operate to abridge, enlarge or modify     the rules of decision by which that court will adjudicate its      rights.' Id., at 445-446, 66 S.Ct. at 246.

Thus were there no conflicting state procedure, Rule 4(d)(1) would clearly control. National Equipment Rental, Limited v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316, 84 S.Ct. 411, 414, 11 L.Ed.2d 354. However, respondent, focusing on the contrary Massachusetts rule, calls to the Court's attention another line of cases, a line which like the Federal Rules-had its birth in 1938. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, overruling Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 865, held that federal courts sitting in diversity cases, when deciding questions of 'substantive' law, are bound by state court decisions as well as state statutes. The broad command of Erie was therefore identical to that of the Enabling Act: federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. However, as subsequent cases sharpened the distinction between substance and procedure, the line of cases following Erie diverged markedly from the line construing the Enabling Act. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079, made it clear that Erie-type problems were not to be solved by reference to any traditional or common-sense substance-procedure distinction:

'And so the question is not whether a statute of limitations     is deemed a matter of 'procedure' in some sence. The question     is *  *  * does it significantly affect the result of a      litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a State      that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by      the same parties in a State court?' 326 U.S., at 109, 65      S.Ct., at 1470.

Respondent, by placing primary reliance on York and Ragan, suggests that the Erie doctrine acts as a check on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that despite the clear command of Rule 4(d)(1), Erie and its progeny demand the application of the Massachusetts rule. Reduced to essentials, the argument is: (1) Erie, as refined in York, demands that federal courts apply state law whenever application of federal law in its stead will alter the outcome of the case. (2) In this case, a determination that the Massachusetts service requirements obtain will result in immediate victory for respondent. If, on the other hand, it should be held that Rule 4(d)(1) is applicable, the litigation will continue, with possible victory for petitioner. (3) Therefore, Erie demands application of the Massachusetts rule. The syllogism possesses an appealing simplicity, but is for several reasons invalid.

In the first place, it is doubtful that, even if there were no Federal Rule making it clear that in-hand service is not required in diversity actions, the Erie rule would have obligated the District Court to follow the Massachusetts procedure. 'Outcome-determination' analysis was never intended to serve as a talisman. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Cooperative, 356 U.S. 525, 537, 78 S.Ct. 893, 900, 2 L.Ed.2d 953. Indeed, the message of York itself is that choices between state and federal law are to be made not by application of any automatic, 'litmus paper' criterion, but rather by reference to the policies underlying the Erie rule. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, supra, 326 U.S. at 108-112, 65 S.Ct. at 1469-1471.

The Erie rule is rooted in part in a realization that it would be unfair for the character of result of a litigation materially to differ because the suit had been brought in a federal court.

'Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction was conferred in order     to prevent apprehended discrimination in state courts against      those not citizens of the state. Swift v. Tyson (16 Pet. 1,     10 L.Ed. 865) introduced grave discrimination by noncitizens      against citizens. It made rights enjoyed under the unwritten     'general law' vary according to whether enforcement was      sought in the state or in the federal court; and the      privilege of selecting the court in which the right should be      determined was conferred upon the noncitizen. Thus, the     doctrine rendered impossible equal protection of the law.'      Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, 304 U.S. at 74-75, 58 S.Ct. at 820-821.

The decision was also in part a reaction to the practice of 'forum-shopping' which had grown up in response to the rule of Swift v. Tyson. 304 U.S., at 73-74, 58 S.Ct. at 819-820. That the York test was an attempt to effectuate these policies is demonstrated by the fact that the opinion framed the inquiry in terms of 'substantial' variations between state and federal litigation. 326 U.S., at 109, 65 S.Ct. at 1469. Not only are nonsubstantial, or trivial, variations not likely to raise the sort of equal protection problems which troubled the Court in Erie; they are also unlikely to influence the choice of a forum. The 'outcome-determination' test therefore cannot be read without reference to the twin aims of the Erie rule: discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.

The difference between the conclusion that the Massachusetts rule is applicable, and the conclusion that it is not, is of course at this point 'outcome-determinative' in the sense that if we hold the state rule to apply, respondent prevails, whereas if we hold that Rule 4(d)(1) governs, the litigation will continue. But in this sense every procedural variation is 'outcome-determinative.' For example, having brought suit in a federal court, a plaintiff cannot then insist on the right to file subsequent pleadings in accord with the time limits applicable in state courts, even though enforcement of the federal timetable will, if he continues to insist that he must meet only the state time limit, result in determination of the controversy against him. So it is here. Though choice of the federal or state rule will at this point have a market effect upon the outcome of the litigation, the difference between the two rules would be of scant, if any, relevance to the choice of a forum. Petitioner, in choosing her forum, was not presented with a situation where application of the state rule would wholly bar recovery; rather, adherence to the state rule would have resulted only in altering the way in which process was served. Moreover, it is difficult to argue that permitting service of defendant's wife to take the place of inhand service of defendant himself alters the mode of enforcement of state-created rights in a fashion sufficiently 'substantial' to raise the sort of equal protection problems to which the Erie opinion alluded.

There is, however, a more fundamental flaw in respondent's syllogism: the incorrect assumption that the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins constitutes the appropriate test of the validity and therefore the applicability of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The Erie rule has never been invoked to void a Federal Rule. It is true that there have been cases where this Court has held applicable a state rule in the face of an argument that the situation was governed by one of the Federal Rules. But the holding of each such case was not that Erie commanded displacement of a Federal Rule by an inconsistent state rule, but rather that the scope of the Federal Rule was not as broad as the losing party urged, and therefore, there being no Federal Rule which covered the point in dispute, Erie commanded the enforcement of state law.

'Respondent contends in the first place that the charge was     correct because of the fact that Rule 8(c) of the Rules of      Civil Procedure makes contributory negligence an affirmative      defense. We do not agree. Rule 8(c) covers only the manner of     pleading. The question of the burden of establishing     contributory negligence is a question of local law which      federal courts in diversity of citizenship cases (Erie R. Co.      v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188) must      apply.' Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 117, 63 S.Ct. 477,     482, 87 L.Ed. 645.

(Here, of course, the clash is unavoidable; Rule 4(d)(1) says implicitly, but with unmistakable clarity-that inhand service is not required in federal courts.) At the same time, in cases adjudicating the validity of Federal Rules, we have not applied the York rule or other refinements of Erie, but have to this day continued to decide questions concerning the scope of the Enabling Act and the constitutionality of specific Federal Rules in light of the distinction set forth in Sibbach. E.g., Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152.

Nor has the development of two separate lines of cases been inadvertent. The line between 'substance' and 'procedure' shifts as the legal context changes. 'Each implies different variables depending upon the particular problem for which it is used.' Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, supra, 326 U.S. at 108, 65 S.Ct. at 1469; Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, pp. 154-183 (1942). It is true that both the Enabling Act and the Erie rule say, roughly, that federal courts are to apply state 'substantive' law and federal 'procedural' law, but from that it need not follow that the tests are identical. For they were designed to control very different sorts of decisions. When a situation is covered by one of the Federal Rules, the question facing the court is a far cry from the typical, relatively unguided Erie Choice: the court has been instructed to apply the Federal Rule, and can refuse to do so only if the Advisory Committee, this Court, and Congress erred in their prima facie judgment that the Rule in question transgresses neither the terms of the Enabling Act nor constitutional restrictions.

We are reminded by the Erie opinion that neither Congress nor the federal courts can, under the guise of formulating rules of decision for federal courts, fashion rules which are not supported by a grant of federal authority contained in Article I or some other section of the Constitution; in such areas state law must govern because there can be no other law. But the opinion in Erie, which involved no Federal Rule and dealt with a question which was 'substantive' in every traditional sense (whether the railroad owed a duty of care to Tompkins as a trespasser or a licensee), surely neither said nor implied that measures like Rule 4(d)(1) are unconstitutional. For the constitutional provision for a federal court system (augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause) carries with it congressional power to make rules governing the practice and pleading in those courts, which in turn includes a power to regulate matters which, though falling with the uncertain area between substance and procedure, are rationally capable of classification as either. Cf. M'Culloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579. Neither York nor the cases following it ever suggested that the rule there laid down for coping with situations where no Federal Rule applies is coextensive with the limitation on Congress to which Erie had adverted. Although this Court has never before been confronted with a case where the applicable Federal Rule is in direct collision with the law of the relevant State, courts of appeals faced with such clashes have rightly discerned the implications of our decisions.

'One of the shaping purposes of the Federal Rules is to bring     about uniformity in the federal courts by getting away from      local rules. This is especially true of matters which relate     to the administration of legal proceedings, an area in which      federal courts have traditionally exerted strong inherent power, completely      aside from the powers Congress expressly conferred in the      Rules. The purpose of the Erie doctrine, even as extended in     York and Ragan, was never to bottle up federal courts with      'outcome-determinative' and 'integral-relations' stoppers      when there are 'affirmative countervailing (federal)      considerations' and when there is a Congressional mandate      (the Rules) supported by constitutional authority.'      Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Wright, 322 F.2d 759, 764      (C.A.5th Cir. 1963).

Erie and its offspring cast no doubt on the long-recognized power of Congress to prescribe housekeeping rules for federal courts even though some of those rules will inevitably differ from comparable state rules. Cf. Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U.S. 91, 51 S.Ct. 383, 75 L.Ed. 857. 'When, because the plaintiff happens to be a non-resident, such a right is enforceable in a federal as well as in a State court, the forms and mode of enforcing the right may at times, naturally enough, vary because the two judicial systems are not identic.' Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, supra, 326 U.S. at 108, 65 S.Ct. at 1469; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 555, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1229. Thus, though a court, in measuring a Federal Rule against the standards contained in the Enabling Act and the Constitution, need not wholly blind itself to the degree to which the Rule makes the character and result of the federal litigation stray from the course it would follow in state courts, Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., supra, 312 U.S. at 13-14, 61 S.Ct. at 426-427, it cannot be forgotten that the Erie rule, and the guidelines suggested in York, were created to serve another purpose altogether. To hold that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure must cease to function whenever it alters the mode of enforcing state-created rights would be to disembowel either the Constitution's grant of power over federal procedure or Congress' attempt to exercise that power in the Enabling Act. Rule 4(d)(1) is valid and controls the instant case.

Reversed.