Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A characterization of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that regulates 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. The label confirms that the rule falls within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act even when it conflicts with state practice in a diversity case.
Alexis Archer sued Aurora Biotech in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after a contract dispute. She served the summons and complaint on the manager of a company branch pursuant to the federal service rule. Aurora moved to dismiss citing a state statute that required service only on its registered agent. The federal rule controlled because it was arguably procedural.
Adam Anderson sued Argonaut Shipping for breach of a maritime contract in federal court. Argonaut asserted a compulsory counterclaim under the federal rule even though state law barred the claim as a counterclaim. Anderson moved to strike the counterclaim. The federal rule applied because it was arguably procedural.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is on point and arguably procedural, it governs in diversity actions even if it conflicts with state practice. The characterization confirms that the rule regulates procedure rather than substantive rights under the Rules Enabling Act.
Supporting sources
No. The forum-shopping test applies only when no federal directive is on point. Once a rule is found valid and arguably procedural, it controls without further inquiry into forum shopping or outcome determination.
Supporting sources
The federal rule governs and service effected under it is effective. Courts reject arguments that the state rule should control to deter forum shopping because the existence of the federal rule removes the case from the no-directive category.
Supporting sources
…the unadulterated outcome and forum-shopping tests may err too far toward honoring state rules, I submit that the Court’s “arguably procedural, ergo constitutional” test moves too fast and far in the other direction. The courts below relied upon this Court’s decisions in Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co. , 337 U. S. 530, and…