Sample Erie Essay

(Krasik gave us the fact pattern)

Bold points are the essay outline, memorize this for exam
The primary issue in this case is hether or not the !everie statute is su"stantive
la and therefore must "e applied# $n %ederal diversity cases, the court must
apply the la of the state hen it is determined to "e su"stantive or relates to a
su"stantial right# There is no federal common la#
The supreme court has developed a to&prong analysis to determine hether a
state la should apply# The first prong is guided "y the !ules Ena"ling 'ct hich
authorizes the Supreme (ourt to )prescri"e general rules of practice and
procedure* for the federal courts#
Is there a federal statute or FRCP on point# $n this case, %ederal !ule + (a) ,
states that a demand for -udgment for relief may "e set forth in an original
pleading# !ule . (g) states that special damages must "e specifically stated#
These rules are on point in that they deal ith the claim for damages, particularly
special damages#
Are the rules are outside the authority of the REA. The !E' states that a
%!(/ is valid if it (a), is rationally capa"le of "eing classified as procedural and
(") )shall not a"ridge, enlarge or modify any su"stantive existing right,* referring
to rights hich have nothing to do ith the litigation process# +(a)0 and .(g)
address methods of pleading hich are clearly procedural and affect
administration of litigation# Therefore, they are valid#
Is there a direct conflict with state law. To determine hether or not there is a
conflict, e read the %!(/ according to its plain meaning and look to the policies
"ehind the state la and %!(/#
$n this case, the plaintiff ill argue that there is a direct conflict via +(a)0 1 that
the rule addresses the same su"-ect matter, a claim for relief, "ut allos different
things, no re2uired evidentiary shoing, and that + a)0 occupies the field# The
same thing ould apply to .(g), that it does not re2uire a The defendant ill
argue that the rule and statute can "e offered together, that the statute doesn3t
say you can never re2uire a shoing, -ust later#
If there is no direct conflict, then we apply the second prong of the
analysis, guided by the Rules of Decision Act
The rules of decision acts states that the las of several states, except here the
(onstitution or treaties of the united#######
The Supreme (ourt has developed tests to determine alternative definitions of
su"stantive#
Does the state law create rights and duties or is it bound up with rights and
duties: $f a state la creates rights and duties it is su"stantive and must "e
applied# $n this case, the evidentiary shoing may "e classified as a heightened
duty, "ut only in an administration of litigation sense# $f yes, then substantie.
!ould the outco"e of the case be different if state law were applied: $f you
apply state la to the issue and the outcome is different than if you apply federal
la, the state la is su"stantive and must "e applied# $n this case, it is unclear if
a heightened re2uirement for a claim for punitive damages ould affect the
outcome of the case, only the amount of damages#
Are there federal or state interests which are controlling# $n a"sence of
other considerations, compelling interests such as docket control and -udicial
economy may override the outcome&determination test# The federal court in this
case is easing the "urden on the plaintiff and increasing -udicial economy#
!ould the application of federal law encourage foru"$shopping. %orum
shopping occurs hen the plaintiff is encouraged to file his claim in a court
favora"le to the issue# $n this case, the plaintiff may "e encouraged to forum&
shop if "y doing so his "urden of an evidentiary shoing is reduced in federal
court# 4n the other hand, if the plaintiff has the re2uisite evidence, the forum ill
"e irrelevant# $f yes, then substantie
Does the application of federal laws lead to an ine%uitable ad"inistration of
law# 'n ine2uita"le administration occurs hen litigation opportunities are
limited hen vieed prospectively# $n this case, litigation opportunity is unlikely
to "e changed in that the plaintiff ill not "e "arred from "ringing suit, he ill only
face a more rigorous evidentiary "urden#