337 U.S. 530 (1949); 446 U.S. 740 (1980)
A highway accident occurred on October 1, 1943, prompting petitioner to file this diversity action in the District Court for Kansas on September 4, 1945, by submitting the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1
As required by those Rules, a summons was issued, but an earlier one from September 7, 1945, had been quashed after service, leading to effective service only on December 28, 1945.23 Kansas maintains a two-year statute of limitations for tort claims arising from such incidents.4
Respondent raised the statute of limitations as a defense and moved for summary judgment, contending that under Kansas law the action was not commenced until service of the summons.5 The District Court rejected this defense and denied the motion for summary judgment.6
Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of petitioner.7 On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment.8 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the important question of whether federal or state rules govern the tolling of the statute of limitations in this diversity context.9
Whether the filing of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tolls the Kansas statute of limitations in a diversity action?10
Under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins and Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, in diversity cases the federal court must apply state law to determine when a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, including any integral requirements for commencing the action, because the cause of action is created by local law and carries the same burdens and defenses in federal court as in state court.11
No. The principle of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins requires that in diversity cases the rights enjoyed under local law should not vary because enforcement of those rights was sought in the federal court rather than in the state court.12 If recovery could not be had in the state court, it should be denied in the federal court.13 It is conceded that if the present case were in a Kansas court it would be barred.14
The theory of Guaranty Trust Co. v. York would therefore seem to bar it in the federal court.15 Although the suit was properly commenced in the federal court under the Federal Rules, the cause of action is created by local law, so the measure of it is to be found only in local law.16 It carries the same burden and is subject to the same defenses in the federal court as in the state court.17
The filing of the complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not toll the Kansas statute of limitations in this diversity action.18
Whether the Kansas requirement that an action be deemed commenced upon service of summons is an integral part of the state statute of limitations?19
Local law created the right which the federal court was asked to enforce.20 Where local law qualifies or abridges the cause of action, the federal court must follow suit.21 A state statute of limitations makes service of summons the measure of commencement.22 That requirement is an integral part of the limitations period.23 The federal court must apply it to avoid creating a different measure of the cause of action.24
Yes. The Court of Appeals on a careful canvass of Kansas law held that the requirement of service of summons within the statutory period was an integral part of that state's statute of limitations.25 The Supreme Court ordinarily accepts the determination of local law by the Court of Appeals and will not disturb it here.26 Therefore the Kansas statute providing that an action shall be deemed commenced at the date of the summons which is served on the defendant qualifies the life of the cause of action under local law.27
The federal court must apply that integral requirement rather than the federal filing rule alone.28
The Kansas requirement that an action be deemed commenced upon service of summons is an integral part of the state statute of limitations.29