Also known as: Rules Enabling Act
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal statute authorizing the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure for the federal district courts. The statute requires that any such rule must be confined to matters of procedure and must not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. When a rule adopted under the statute directly addresses an issue in a diversity case, the federal rule governs even if a conflicting state rule exists.
Francisco Frost sued Frontier Capital in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for breach of a loan agreement. He served the summons on the bank's compliance officer under the federal rule governing service on corporations. Frontier Capital moved to dismiss, pointing to a stricter state rule that required service only on designated officers. The court denied the motion because the federal rule controlled.
Flora Ford filed a diversity class action against Fidelity Trust alleging systematic underpayment of interest on insurance claims. A state statute barred class actions seeking only interest recovery under insurance contracts. Ford moved for certification under the federal class-action rule. The court applied the federal rule and granted certification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felicia Fuentes obtained a judgment against Fisher Foods in a diversity contract action. Fisher Foods appealed and lost. A state statute automatically imposed a ten-percent penalty on the judgment for filing a frivolous appeal. The court of appeals declined to apply the state penalty because the federal appellate rule on damages for delay governed instead.
Frank Fisher won a $450,000 verdict against Falcon Dynamics in a diversity personal-injury case. The defendant moved for a new trial or remittitur under a state statute that required reduction when an award materially deviated from reasonable compensation. The district court applied the federal shocks-the-conscience standard instead and denied the motion.
Floyd Franklin sued in diversity after suffering injuries in a workplace accident. The defendant moved under the federal discovery rule for an order compelling Franklin to submit to a physical examination. Franklin objected, citing a state rule that prohibited such examinations in personal-injury cases. The court granted the motion because the federal rule applied.
Felix Franco sued Frontier Capital in a diversity contract dispute. The contract contained a forum-selection clause designating a particular federal district. Frontier Capital moved to transfer the case under the federal transfer statute. Franco argued that a state procedural rule barred enforcement of the clause. The court enforced the clause under the federal rule.
A federal rule governs when it directly addresses the issue and is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. Validity turns on whether the rule is at least arguably procedural and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. Once those conditions are met, the federal rule controls without further balancing of state interests.
No. The forum-shopping inquiry applies only when no federal rule or statute directly addresses the issue. When a valid federal rule covers the point, the analysis ends and the federal rule governs.
No. Rule 23 governs class certification in diversity actions even when a state statute would bar the class. The rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act because it regulates only the procedural mechanism for aggregation and leaves substantive rights unchanged.
…designed to control service of process in diversity actions,[^maj-3] 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…