§ 2072.
Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The
Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and
procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts
(including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules
shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in
conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such
rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules
may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of
appeal under section 1291 of this title.
CREDIT(S)
2002
Electronic Update
(Added Pub.L. 100-702, Title IV, § 401(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102
Stat. 4648, and amended Pub.L. 101-650, Title III, §§ 315, 321, Dec. 1, 1990,
104 Stat. 5115, 5117.)
<General Materials (GM) -
References, Annotations, or Tables>
FEDERAL
COURT RULES
<The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, together with the Notes of the Advisory Committee,
Law Review Commentaries, and the judicial constructions of the Rules, are
displayed at the end of this Title for convenient reference.>
HISTORICAL
AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision
Notes and Legislative Reports
1988 Acts. House Report No. 100-889, see
1988 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 5982.
1990 Acts. Senate Report No. 101-416, House Report Nos. 101-123, 101- 512, 101-514, 101-734, and 101-735, and Statement by
President, see 1990 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 6802.
Amendments
1990 Amendments. Subsec. (c). Pub.L. 101-650 added subsec.
(c).
Effective
and Applicability Provisions
1988 Acts. Section effective Dec.
1, 1988, see section 407 of Pub.L.
100- 702, set out as a note under section 2071 of this title.
Change of
Name
"United States magistrate judge"
substituted for "United States magistrate" in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub.L.
101-650, set out as a note under 28 U.S.C.A. § 631.
Prior
Provisions
A prior section 2072, Acts June 25,
1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 961; May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 103, 63 Stat. 104; July 18,
1949, c. 343, § 2, 63 Stat. 446; May 10, 1950, c. 174, § 2, 64 Stat. 158; July
7, 1958, Pub.L. 85-508, § 12(m), 72 Stat. 348; Nov.
6, 1966, Pub.L. 89-773, § 1, 80 Stat. 1323, which
authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of civil procedure, was
repealed by Pub.L. 100-702, Title IV, §§ 401(a), 407, Nov. 19,
1988, 102 Stat. 4648, 4652, effective Dec. 1, 1988.
Admiralty
Rules
The Rules of Practice in Admiralty
and Maritime Cases, promulgated by the Supreme Court on
Dec. 20, 1920, effective Mar. 7, 1921, as revised, amended, and supplemented,
were rescinded, effective July 1, 1966, in accordance with the general
unification of civil and admiralty procedure which became effective July 1,
1966. Provision for certain distinctively maritime remedies were preserved
however, in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims,
Rules A to F, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this title.
Applicability
to Virgin Islands
Rules of civil procedure
promulgated under this section as applicable to the District Court of the
Virgin Islands, see section 1614 of Title 48, Territories and Insular
Possessions.
CROSS
REFERENCES
Application
of rules of procedure, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rules 1, 2, 35, 38, and 81, 28 USCA.
Evidence,
see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 43, 28 USCA.
Filing of
record of proceedings as provided by this section for enforcement of agency
orders--
Generally,
see 28 USCA § 2112.
National
Labor Relations Board, see 29 USCA § 160.
One form of
action, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rules 1 and
2, 28 USCA.
Practice
and procedure for trial of cases before magistrates to conform to rules
promulgated by Supreme Court pursuant to this section, see 28 USCA § 636.
Review of
rules for consistency with rules prescribed under § 2071 of this title by
judicial council, see 28 USCA § 332.
Rules for
review of decisions--
Court of
Veterans Appeals, see 38 USCA § 7292.
Tax Court,
see 26 USCA § 7482.
AMERICAN
LAW REPORTS
Construction
of Federal Rule 25(a)(1) as permitting substitution, as a party, of personal
representative of a nonresident decedent. 79 ALR2d 535.
Federal
courts as following law of forum state with respect to privileged
communications. 95 ALR2d 324.
Appealability,
under collateral order doctrine, of order denying qualified immunity in 42 USCA
§ 1983 or Bivens action for damages where claim for equitable
relief is also pending-post-Harlow cases. 105 ALR Fed 851.
Who must be
joined in action as person 'needed for just adjudication under Rule 19(a), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 22 ALR Fed 774.
Procedural requirements for imposition
of sanctions under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 100 ALR Fed
556.
Rule 15(c), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or state law as governing relation back of amended
pleading. 100 ALR Fed 880.
LIBRARY
REFERENCES
American Digest System
Power of
courts to make rules governing federal court procedure in general, see Federal
Civil Procedure 
31
et seq.
Rule-making
power of courts generally, see Courts 78
et seq.
Encyclopedias
Power of
courts to make rules governing federal court procedure in general, see C.J.S.
Federal Civil Procedure § 5 et seq.
Rule-making
power of courts generally, see C.J.S. Courts § 126 et seq.
16A Am. Jur.
2d, Constitutional Law § 605.
2 Am. Jur. 2d,
Admiralty (1994) § 186.
5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error § 1024.
32 Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1, 6, 293, 487,
504-508, 510-513, 519.
32B Am. Jur.
2d, Federal Courts §§ 2045, 2223, 2585.
32A Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure, §§ 535, 986, 990,
991, 993, 1254, 2031.
32B Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2609.
32B Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Rules of Evidence §§ 1, 13, 162, 170, 194,
201.
57B Am. Jur.
2d, Negligence § 1845.
62B Am. Jur.
2d, Process § 60.
Forms
2 Fed.
Proc. Forms L Ed, Appeal, Certiorari, and Review §§ 3:1, 8, 341, 981, 1021,
1041, 1061, 1331, 1351, 1541, 1551, 1561, 1581, 1611.
2 Fed.
Proc. Forms L Ed, Appeal, Certiorari, and Review §§ 3:2, 252, 692.
6A Fed.
Proc. Forms L Ed, Copyrights § 17:1.
Law Review and Journal Commentaries
Appellate
jurisdiction of interlocutory appeals in bankruptcy 28 U.S.C. § 158(d): A case of
lapsus calami. Judy Beckner Sloan, 40 Cath.U.L.Rev.
265 (1991).
Civil
Justice Reform Act of 1990 and the 1993 amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: Can systemic ills afflicting the federal courts be remedied by
local rules? Edward D. Cavanagh, 67 St.John's L.Rev. 721 (1993).
Erie and court access. Allan R. Stein, 100 Yale L.J. 1935 (1991).
Forum
selection clauses in federal courts: Limitations on enforcement after Stewart
and Carnival Cruise. Walter W. Heiser, 45 Fla.L.Rev.
553 (1993).
Individual
judges' practices: An inadvertent subversion of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Myron J. Bromberg and Jonathan M. Korn, 68 St.John's L.Rev. 1 (1994).
Jurisdictional
problems between admiralty and bankruptcy courts. Frank R. Kennedy, 59 Tul.L.Rev.
1182 (1985).
New confederacy? Disunionism
in the federal courts. Paul D. Carrington, 45 Duke L.J. 929 (1996).
Personal
jurisdiction and the appearance to challenge jurisdiction in Texas. W. Frank
Newton and Jeremy C. Wicker, 38 Baylor L.Rev.
491 (1986).
"Substance"
and "procedure" in the Rules Enabling Act. Paul D. Carrington, 1989 Duke L.J. 281.
Supreme
Court's role in interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Karen Nelson
Moore, 44 Hastings L.J. 1039 (1993).
Twilight zone of the Erie doctrine: Is
there really a different choice of equitable remedies in the "court a
block away"? David Crump, 1991 Wis.L.Rev. 1233.
Federal Rules Decisions Commentaries
Changes in
Federal jurisdiction and practice under the new Judicial Improvements and
Access to Justice Act. David D. Siegel, 123 F.R.D. 399 (1989).
Changes in
federal jurisdiction and practice under the new (Dec. 1, 1990) Judicial
Improvements Act. David D. Siegel, 133 F.R.D. 61 (1991).
Congress
and the 1993 Civil Rules proposals. Carl Tobias, 148 F.R.D. 383 (1993).
Federal
subpoena practice under the new Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. David D. Siegel, 139 F.R.D. 197 (1992).
The statute
of limitations in federal practice, including the new "general" one
in federal question cases. David D. Siegel, 134 F.R.D. 481 (1991).
Discussion
of this section, see Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure:
Jurisdiction § 4508.
Power of
Supreme Court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure and forms of
process, see Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §
1012.
Trial by
jury preserved by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §
2301.
1 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Access to District Courts § 1:383.5.
10 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Discovery and Depositions § 26:6.
2 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Administrative Procedure §§ 2:257, 259,.
2 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Administrative Procedure (1994) §§ 2:368, 371.
2A Fed.
Proc. L Ed Appeal, Certiorari, and Review (1994) §§ 3:315, 428, 432, 433.
2 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Appeal, Certiorari, and Review §§ 3:394, 398, 399, 458, 773, 774.
6A Fed.
Proc. L Ed Class Actions § 12:273.
7A Fed.
Proc. L Ed Court of Claims § 19:2.
7A Fed.
Proc. L Ed Courts and Judicial System §§ 20:188, 272, 354.
8 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Courts and Judicial System §§ 20:402, 404-408, 410-413, 419.
8 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Courts and Judicial System §§ 20:625, 626, 628, 629, 631-635.
8 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Criminal Procedures §§ 22:1, 3, 11, 103.
8 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Criminal Procedure §§ 22:1-3, 86.
10A Fed.
Proc. L Ed Discovery and Depositions § 26:426.
10A Fed.
Proc. L Ed Discovery and Depositions § 26:510.
12 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Evidence §§ 33:1, 18, 256, 342, 353.
23 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Maritime Law and Procedure §§ 53:1, 70, 79.
26 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Parties § 59:427.
27 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Pleadings and Motions §§ 62:167, 207.
28 Fed. Proc.
L Ed Process §§ 65:43, 44.
33 Fed.
Proc. L Ed Trial § 77:211.
33 Fed.
Proc. L Ed, Veterans and Veterans' Affairs § 79:241.
4 Am Law
Prod Liab 3d, Consumer Product Safety Laws § 63:3.
2 Bkr L Ed, Code Commentary and Analysis §§ 11:42, 13:61.
24A Fed Tax
Coord 2d ¶ U-5500.
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Generally
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Capacity to
sue rule 15
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Class
actions 11a
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Counterclaims
rule 16
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Entry of
final judgment rule 17
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights -
Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure 13
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights -
Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure generally 14
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights -
Procedural or
substantive rules 12
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Sanctions
rule 18
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Service of
process rule 19
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights -
Settlement of
class actions 18a
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights - Third-party
practice rule 20
Capacity to sue rule, abridgement, enlargement or modification of substantive
rights 15
Class actions, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive rights
Conclusiveness of rules 6
Conflicting laws
Conflicting laws - Generally 21
Conflicting laws - Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure generally 23
Conflicting laws - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally 26
Conflicting laws - Fees and costs 24
Conflicting laws - Limitations 25
Conflicting laws - Pleading requirements 27
Conflicting laws - Supersession of conflicting laws by federal rules 22
Constitutional challenges to rules in district courts 31
Costs rule, conflicting laws 24
Counterclaims rule, abridgement, enlargement or modification of substantive
rights 16
Duty of Supreme Court 3
Entry of final judgment rule, abridgement, enlargement or modification of
substantive rights 17
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification
of substantive rights 13
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, conflicting laws
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, conflicting laws - Generally 23
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, conflicting laws -
Fees and costs rule
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, conflicting laws - Limitations rule 25
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Generally 14
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Capacity to sue rule 15
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Counterclaims rule 16
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Entry of final judgment rule 17
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Sanctions rule 18
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Service of process rule 19
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights - Third-party practice rule 20
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, conflicting laws
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, conflicting laws - Generally 26
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, conflicting laws - Pleading requirements
rule 27
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally 5
Fees and costs rule, conflicting laws 24
Force and effect of rules
Force and effect of rules - Generally 7
Force and effect of rules - Inaction by Congress 8
Habeas corpus proceedings 32
Inaction by Congress, force and effect of rules 8
Jurisdictional enlargements or restrictions 28
Limitations rule, conflicting laws 25
Mandatory nature of rules 9
Pleading requirements rule, conflicting laws 27
Power of Congress 2
Procedural or substantive rules
Procedural or substantive rules - Generally 10
Procedural or substantive rules -
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights 12
Purpose 1
Regulations, force and effect of rules 8
Sanctions rule, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of substantive
rights 18
Scope of power of Supreme Court 4
Service of process rule, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights 19
Settlement of class actions, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights 18a
Substantive law principles expressed 29
Substantive or procedural rules
Substantive or procedural rules - Generally 10
Substantive or procedural rules -
Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights 12
Supersession of conflicting laws by Federal rules 22
Third-party practice rule, abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights 20
Ultra vires rules 30
1. Purpose
The broad aim of this section,
especially in fields of practice, was to reverse the philosophy of conformity
to local state procedure and establish, with but few specific exceptions, an
approach of uniformity within the whole federal judicial trial system. Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Spach, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1960, 281 F.2d 401.
2. Power of Congress
Congress has power to prescribe
housekeeping rules for federal courts even though some of rules will inevitably
differ from comparable state rules. Hanna v. Plumer, U.S.Mass.1965, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 380 U.S. 460, 14 L.Ed.2d 8.
Congress has power to regulate the
practice and procedure of federal courts and may exercise that power by
delegating to Supreme Court or other federal courts authority to make rules not
inconsistent with statutes or Constitution. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., U.S.Ill.1941, 61 S.Ct.
422, 312 U.S. 1, 312 U.S. 655, 85 L.Ed. 479.
The Congressional power to
prescribe the practice in federal courts cannot be abrogated or diminished by
states without consent of Congress which may delegate to federal courts
authority to make rules not inconsistent with the statutes or Constitution of
the United States governing practice in federal courts. Williams v. Powers,
C.C.A.6 (Ohio) 1943, 135 F.2d 153, 26 O.O. 359.
3. Duty of Supreme Court
Where subject concerns enforcement
of rules which by law it is duty of Supreme Court to formulate and put in
force, Supreme Court may deal directly with district court. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, U.S.Ind.1964, 85 S.Ct.
234, 379 U.S. 104, 13 L.Ed.2d 152.
4. Scope of power of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has power to
prescribe the practice and procedure of district courts in civil actions, so
long as these rules do not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v.
Pillsbury, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1958, 259 F.2d 850.
Rule-making power delegated by
Congress to the Supreme Court is limited in scope to those powers which
Congress could have rightfully exercised. Grand Bahama Petroleum Co., Ltd. v.
Canadian Transp. Agencies, Ltd., W.D.Wash.1978, 450 F.Supp.
447.
5. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 4, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,
this title, prescribing the manner in which a defendant is to be notified that
a suit has been instituted against him relates to "practice and procedure
of district courts" within this section providing that Supreme Court has
power to prescribe practice and procedure of district courts. Hanna v. Plumer, U.S.Mass.1965, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 380 U.S. 460, 14 L.Ed.2d 8.
United States Supreme Court had
power to promulgate rule 4(f), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this title, providing that all process other than a
subpoena may be served anywhere within territorial limits of state in which
district court is held. Murphree v. Mississippi Pub. Corp., C.C.A.5 (Miss.)
1945, 149 F.2d 138, certiorari
granted 66 S.Ct. 44,
326 U.S. 702, 90 L.Ed. 414, affirmed 66 S.Ct. 242,
326 U.S. 438, 90 L.Ed. 185.
The Supreme Court had power to
adopt Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this title, for district courts
consistent with former §§ 723b and 723c of this title. Sibbach
v. Wilson & Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1939, 108 F.2d 415, certiorari
granted 60 S.Ct. 809,
309 U.S. 650, 84 L.Ed. 1001, reversed on other grounds 61 S.Ct. 422,
312 U.S. 1, 312 U.S. 655, 85 L.Ed. 479.
6. Conclusiveness of rules
When Congress acts on the subject
of regulating the practice and procedure in the federal courts, the rule
prescribed whether directly by legislation or by the Supreme Court under its
Congressional authorization is conclusive. Kellman v. Stoltz, N.D.Iowa 1941, 1
F.R.D. 726.
7. Force and effect of rules--Generally
The rules acquired force of federal
statutes controlling all federal district courts after they went into effect on
Sept. 16, 1938, and since that date all conflicting laws ceased to have further
force. C.J. Wieland & Son Dairy Products
Co. v. Wickard, E.D.Wis.1945, 4 F.R.D. 250.
8. ---- Inaction by Congress
Congressional inaction on
promulgated rule of civil procedure gives the rule status of regulation. In re Halkin,
C.A.D.C.1979, 598 F.2d 176, 194 U.S.App.D.C. 257.
9. Mandatory nature of rules
A rule of practice may be
considered by the district court as mandatory only. Pickett v. F.B. Stearns Co., N.D.Ohio 1924, 2 F.2d 600.
10. Procedural or substantive rules
Former §§ 723b and 723c authorizing
Supreme Court to prescribe civil procedure rules were restricted in their
operation to matters of pleading and court practice and procedure. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., U.S.Ill.1941, 61 S.Ct.
422, 312 U.S. 1, 312 U.S. 655, 85 L.Ed. 479.
District court's Criminal Justice
Act Plan was not a "rule of practice and procedure" or a "rule
for evidence" within meaning of statute governing power to prescribe such
rules. Russell v. Hug, C.A.9 (Cal.) 2002, 275
F.3d 812.
Rules are of a procedural nature
leaving matters of substantive right to be otherwise determined. U. S. for Use and Benefit of Greenville
Equipment Co. v. U. S. Cas. Co., D.C.Del.1962, 218 F.Supp.
653.
Congress by this section empowering
the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of civil procedure recognized the
distinction between substantive law, creating and defining rights and duties of
litigants, and procedural or adjective law, prescribing the court practice, and
means or method for administering substantive law. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Kielhorn, W.D.Mich.1951, 98 F.Supp.
288.
Under former § 723b of this title,
authorization was limited to provision solely for adjective matters in course
of litigation in controversies of a civil nature as distinguished from
substantive ones which remained secure to all litigants. Melekov v. Collins, S.D.Cal.1939, 30 F.Supp.
159, mandamus denied 114 F.2d 727.
Test of whether rule propounded by
court is within court's procedural rule- making power is whether rule really
regulates procedure. State of Utah v. American Pipe &
Const. Co., C.D.Cal.1970, 50 F.R.D. 99, affirmed in part, reversed
in part on other grounds 473 F.2d 580, certiorari
granted 93 S.Ct. 2146,
411 U.S. 963, 36 L.Ed.2d 683, affirmed 94 S.Ct. 756,
414 U.S. 538, 38 L.Ed.2d 713, rehearing denied 94 S.Ct. 1477,
415 U.S. 952, 39 L.Ed.2d 568.
11. Abridgement, enlargement, or modification of
substantive rights-- Generally
Former § 723b of this title
authorizing the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of procedure in civil actions
gave it no authority to modify, abridge or enlarge the substantive rights of
litigants or to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of federal courts. U.S. v. Sherwood, U.S.N.Y.1941, 61 S.Ct. 767, 312 U.S. 584, 85 L.Ed.
1058. See, also, Wyker v. Willingham, D.C.Ala.1944, 55 F.Supp.
105; Lowe v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1941, 37 F.Supp. 817.
Although the Supreme Court has the
power to prescribe rules of procedure for federal district and appellate
courts, it may not adopt rules which abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right. Matter of C. A. P., D.C.App.1976, 356
A.2d 335, rehearing denied 359 A.2d 11.
11A. ---- Class actions
Rule requiring court approval of
proposed settlement of class action does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any
substantive rights and, therefore, is not subject to prohibition of Rules
Enabling Act against rules that abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive
right. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America
Sales Practices Litigation, D.N.J.1997, 962 F.Supp.
450, affirmed 148 F.3d 283, certiorari
denied 119 S.Ct. 890,
525 U.S. 1114, 142 L.Ed.2d 789, enforcement granted.
12. ---- Procedural or substantive rules
When rule of law is one which would
affect person's conduct prior to institution of litigation and has no design to
manage ongoing litigation it is a rule of substance rather than procedure,
within this section mandating that federal rules not abridge, enlarge or modify
any substantive right. McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. Cim
Associates, Inc., S.D.Fla.1977, 438 F.Supp. 245.
13. ---- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure fall within scope of the rules enabling act and are the governing
rules of procedure in civil actions to exclusion of conflicting laws to the
extent they do not abridge any substantive rights. Affholder, Inc. v. Southern Rock, Inc., C.A.5 (Miss.) 1984, 746 F.2d
305.
14. ---- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally
Publicity in Taking Evidence Act,
requiring public disclosure of depositions taken in antitrust cases, was not
superseded by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provision allowing district
court to exclude other than designated persons from conducting discovery;
determination under Rules was to be made by balancing many interests, including
those represented by Act. U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., C.A.D.C.1999,
165 F.3d 952, 334 U.S.App.D.C. 165.
Court must not apply Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure if application violates either Constitution or Rules
Enabling Act. Douglas v. NCNB Texas Nat. Bank, C.A.5
(Tex.) 1992, 979 F.2d 1128, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 68,
510 U.S. 817, 126 L.Ed.2d 37.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
this title, do not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and do not
enlarge the jurisdiction of federal courts. Brennan v. Silvergate
Dist. Lodge No. 50, Intern. Ass'n of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1974, 503 F.2d 800.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
this title, govern procedure only and not the substantive
rights of parties who invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts. Fontenot v. Roach, E.D.Tenn.1954, 120 F.Supp. 788.
15. ---- Capacity to sue rule
West's F.S.A. § 607.354
precluding corporation transacting business in state from suing in state courts
unless it has obtained authority to transact business there is highly
influential in choice of forum and has purpose of encouraging corporate
qualification for benefit of state's citizenry; thus it is substantive and, in
diversity action brought by foreign corporation in federal court in Florida,
that statute must be given precedence over rule 17(b), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this title, providing that law of state of incorporation
determines corporation's capacity to sue. McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. Cim
Associates, Inc., S.D.Fla.1977, 438 F.Supp. 245.
16. ---- Counterclaims rule
Federal rule on compulsory
counterclaim would abridge secured lender's substantive rights under Texas law
to elect judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure, would enlarge borrowers'
substantive rights, and, therefore, did not apply in borrowers' action alleging
prime rate fraud, whether or not lender had deed of trust; thus, lender's
failure to file counterclaim did not bar action by Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) to collect on notes as assignee. Douglas v. NCNB Texas Nat. Bank, C.A.5
(Tex.) 1992, 979 F.2d 1128, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 68,
510 U.S. 817, 126 L.Ed.2d 37.
17. ---- Entry of final judgment rule
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this title, permitting entry of a final judgment at an
early stage in a multiple claims action is within the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court, since it really regulates federal district court procedure
rather than appellate jurisdiction, and its effect on appellate jurisdiction is
but incidental and indirect. Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass, C.A.3
(Pa.) 1952, 195 F.2d 267, 92 U.S.P.Q. 235.
18. ---- Sanctions rule
Imposing sanctions under Rule 11
against represented party that did not act in bad faith did not violate rules
Enabling Act; Rule 11 was reasonably necessary to maintain integrity of system
of federal practice and procedure, and any effect on substantive rights was
incidental. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic
Communications Enterprises, Inc., U.S.Cal.1991, 111 S.Ct.
922, 498 U.S. 533, 112 L.Ed.2d 1140.
Amendments to Rule 11 could not be
applied in case in which offending conduct by attorney took place prior to
effective date of amendments, sanctions motion was filed prior to effective
date of amendments, and parties completed their briefing prior to effective
date of amendments. Temple v. WISAP USA in Texas,
D.Neb.1993, 152 F.R.D. 591.
18A. ---- Settlement of class actions
Settlement of a class action
involving over 8 million policyholders and alleging deceptive sales practices
by a life insurer did not violate the provision of the Rules Enabling Act
prohibiting rules of practice and procedure from abridging, enlarging, or
modifying any substantive right. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales
Practices Litigation, C.A.3 (N.J.) 1998, 148 F.3d 283,
certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 890,
525 U.S. 1114, 142 L.Ed.2d 789.
19. ---- Service of process rule
Right affected by federal rules
permitting party not inhabitant or found within state to be served with summons
in federal court action under circumstances and in manner prescribed by state
statute is not a "substantive right" within this section forbidding
Supreme Court from prescribing rules which abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right. U.S. v. Montreal Trust Co.,
S.D.N.Y.1964, 35 F.R.D. 216.
20. ---- Third-party practice rule
Under state statutes that condition
defendant's cause of action for contribution upon discharge of defendant's
common liability to plaintiff, federal rule governing impleader of third-party
defendants can be used to accelerate defendant's cause of action for
contribution without abridging, enlarging, or modifying substantive rights in
violation of Rules Enabling Act; third-party defendant's status will not be
affected but, rather, time when defendant's claim is presented will simply be
accelerated. Connors v. Suburban Propane Co.,
D.N.H.1996, 916 F.Supp. 73.
In action in United States District
Court for Tennessee to recover damages for injuries sustained in automobile
collision in that state, district court could not permit original defendant to
bring in alleged joint tortfeasor as a third- party defendant under rule 14(a), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this title, on ground that she should pay all or part of
any judgment rendered against original defendant, since to do so would be to
recognize in federal court a substantive right which was not recognized in
state courts of Tennessee contrary to this section, providing that federal
rules shall not enlarge any substantive right. Fontenot v. Roach, E.D.Tenn.1954, 120 F.Supp. 788.
21. Conflicting laws--Generally
Where there is a direct collision
between federal rule and state practice, in an action brought in federal court
under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, federal rule applies if it is
within scope of rules enabling act and the Constitution. Connolly v. Foudree,
S.D.Iowa 1992, 141 F.R.D. 124.
22. ---- Supersession of conflicting laws by
federal rules
Statutes are superseded by
conflicting federal rules. Griffith Co. v. N.L.R.B., C.A.9 1976,
545 F.2d 1194, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 171,
434 U.S. 854, 54 L.Ed.2d 125.
23. ---- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
generally
Statutory proctor's docket fee in
admiralty appeals is no longer allowable; § 1913 of this title providing for
same and § 1920(5) of this title providing for taxation of same by judge or
clerk are no longer of force or effect by reason of this section providing that
laws in conflict with rules of appellate procedure shall be of no further force
or effect. Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 419 F.2d 372.
24. ---- Fees and costs rule
Entitlement to allowance for
printing costs as taxable costs was determinable with reference to rule 39(c), Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, this title, rather than to § 1923(c) of this title
restricting amount allowable. Albatross Tanker Corp. v. SS. Amoco
Delaware, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1969, 418 F.2d 248.
25. ---- Limitations rule
There are two limits to Congress'
power to amend Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: first is Rules Enabling
Act's "abrogation clause," which provides that statutes passed before
effective date of rule in question are trumped, and that statute passed after
federal rule's effective date repeals rule to extent that it actually
conflicts; second is general disfavor with which courts view implicit
amendments or repeal of statutes. Jackson v. Stinnett, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1996,
102 F.3d 132.
To extent that § 2107 of this title
permitting district court to extend time for appeal, not exceeding 30 days from
expiration of original time prescribed, upon showing of excusable neglect based
on failure of party to learn of entry of judgment, order, or decree, conflicts
with rule 4, Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure, this title, the latter governs. Cederbaums v. Harris, S.D.N.Y.1980, 484 F.Supp.
125.
26. ---- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
generally
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
this title, are not to be narrowly construed in order to avoid "direct
collision" with state law in diversity cases but should be given their
plain meaning and if direct collision with state law arises from that plain
meaning, then test is whether rule was within scope of this section and, if so,
within a constitutional grant of power. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.,
U.S.Okla.1980, 100 S.Ct. 1978, 446 U.S. 740, 64
L.Ed.2d 659.
Provision of Prison Litigation
Reform Act, creating automatic stay of any prospective relief of prison
conditions that has already been approved or granted, beginning 30th day after
motion for termination of relief is filed, did not impermissibly conflict with
federal rules of procedure governing relief from judgment or order and stay of
proceedings to enforce judgment, and amendment of rules by Supreme Court was
not required, under Rules Enabling Act, before provision could take effect;
enforcement of stay provision would not affect court's authority to grant
relief from judgment or stay in its discretion. U.S. v. State of Mich., W.D.Mich.1996,
989 F.Supp. 853.
In federal diversity case, when
direct conflict exists between applicable Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure and state rule of decision, Rules Enabling Act determines which
rule governs. Connors v. Suburban Propane Co.,
D.N.H.1996, 916 F.Supp. 73.
Where state statutory provision
directly collides with plain meaning of federal procedural statute or formal
rule of procedure, federal court sitting in diversity analyzes whether rule is
constitutional and, if formal rule of procedure is involved, whether rule is
authorized by Rules Enabling Act; however, when there is no federal rule on
point, court must evaluate whether application of state law would further twin
aims of Erie rule of discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of
inequitable administration of laws. Hill v. Morrison, W.D.Mo.1994, 870 F.Supp. 978.
Even in a diversity case where the
federal court would otherwise be required to apply the substantive law of state
in which it was sitting, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this title, are
controlling over conflicting state laws on a procedural matter unless the
particular rule in question transgresses either the standards set forth in the
Enabling Act or the Constitution. Goodman v. Poland, D.C.Md.1975, 395 F.Supp. 660.
27. ---- Pleading requirements rule
Direct conflict did not exist
between New Jersey's affidavit of merit statute, which required proof of expert
support for medical malpractice claim, and federal pleading rules, so as to
preclude statute's application in diversity action, notwithstanding provision
under New Jersey law deeming failure to file affidavit a failure to state cause
of action. Chamberlain v. Giampapa,
C.A.3 (N.J.) 2000, 210 F.3d 154.
Federal rule providing that
complaint shall contain "short and plain statement" of claim does not
exceed scope of Rules Enabling Act, nor is it otherwise unconstitutional and,
therefore, federal rule controlled over Florida statute setting forth pleading
requirements for punitive damage claims in diversity action. State of Wis. Inv. Bd. v. Plantation
Square Associates, Ltd., S.D.Fla.1991, 761 F.Supp.
1569.
28. Jurisdictional enlargements or restrictions
In adopting rules, federal courts
are not free to extend or restrict jurisdiction conferred by statute. Willy v. Coastal Corp., U.S.Tex.1992,
112 S.Ct. 1076, 503 U.S. 131, 117 L.Ed.2d 280,
rehearing denied 112 S.Ct.
2001, 504 U.S. 935, 118 L.Ed.2d 596.
The rules so far as they were
applicable in actions brought in district courts under former § 41(20) of this
title did not authorize the maintenance of any action against the United States
to which it had not otherwise consented, since an authority conferred on a
court to make rules of procedure for the exercise of its jurisdiction is not an
authority to enlarge that jurisdiction. U.S. v. Sherwood, U.S.N.Y.1941, 61 S.Ct. 767, 312 U.S. 584, 85 L.Ed.
1058.
The Supreme Court, in adopting the
federal rules, did not intend to establish jurisdictional limitations on power
of district courts. United Press Assn's v. Charles, C.A.9
(Alaska) 1957, 245 F.2d 21, 17 Alaska 46, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct. 1378,
354 U.S. 925, 17 Alaska 244, 1 L.Ed.2d 1435.
The United States Supreme Court may
not, by adoption of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
title, alter the jurisdiction of federal district courts or of the courts of
appeals. Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass, C.A.3
(Pa.) 1952, 195 F.2d 267, 92 U.S.P.Q. 235.
The Supreme Court had authority
under former §§ 723b and 723c of this title to promulgate amended rule 73(a)
which requires that in an action in which an agency of the United States is a
party, the time permitted for appeal from a district court to court of appeals
is 60 days from entry of judgment appealed, and rule does not affect
substantive rights but relates to practice and procedure and the rule neither
enlarges or abridges the jurisdiction of the court of appeals but merely
implements its jurisdiction over the subject matter which Congress has
conferred by providing the procedure for review. Hart v. Knox County, Tenn.,
C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1948, 171 F.2d 45.
Delegation of rule-making power to
Supreme Court under this section does not authorize expansion or contraction of
jurisdiction conferred by statute. Collins v. Bolton, N.D.Ill.1968, 287 F.Supp. 393.
Supreme Court may not by its rules
increase or diminish jurisdiction of federal district court prescribed by laws
enacted by Congress in pursuance of Constitution, though
Supreme Court may regulate exercise of jurisdiction in any manner not
inconsistent with laws of United States. Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co.,
S.D.Cal.1954, 16 F.R.D. 141, 102 U.S.P.Q. 151.
29. Substantive law principles expressed
Most court rules are merely a
formulation of the previous practice of the courts, although they are not
necessarily so confined; and occasionally a rule is employed to express a
principle of substantive law which has been established by statute or decisions.
Washington-Southern Nav. Co. v.
Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., U.S.1924, 44 S.Ct.
220, 263 U.S. 629, 68 L.Ed. 480. See,
also, Galveston Dry Dock & Constr. Co. v.
Standard Dredging Co., 1930, 40 F.2d 442.
30. Ultra vires rules
Congress' failure to suspend a
proposed rule under this section gives it the force not of a legislative
enactment, but of a regulation pursuant to this section; if the rule is
subsequently found to be ultra vires the act of which it is a creature, it is
void, otherwise Congress might by such layover provisions circumvent the veto
power of the President. Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., C.A.D.C.1977, 554 F.2d
1165, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 306, certified
question answered 378 A.2d 1100, 281 Md. 207,
supplemented 568 F.2d 1389, 186 U.S.App.D.C.
167.
31. Constitutional challenges to rules in
district courts
Where question at issue is not
merely whether a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court should be amended, but
whether it is constitutionally valid, question is not without jurisdiction of
district court on ground that a federal rule should not be changed by case law,
but should be left to the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making powers. Grand Bahama Petroleum Co., Ltd. v.
Canadian Transp. Agencies, Ltd., W.D.Wash.1978, 450 F.Supp.
447.
32. Habeas corpus proceedings
In view of fact that Congress has
been largely silent with respect to methods of securing facts when necessary to
accomplish objective of habeas corpus proceedings, courts must fashion
appropriate modes of procedure, by analogy to existing rules or otherwise in
conformity with judicial usage. Harris v. Nelson, U.S.Cal.1969, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 394 U.S. 286, 22 L.Ed.2d 281,
rehearing denied 89 S.Ct. 1623,
394 U.S. 1025, 23 L.Ed.2d 50.
END OF DOCUMENT