Case BriefCiv Pro Personal jurisdiction, state rules & service of processBauer 3/7/15Identity of CaseHanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)), page 936Summary of Facts/Procedural HistoryHanna sued Plumer, the executive of the deceased, for a car crash allegedly caused by the deceased. Suitin Federal Court in Massachusetts under diversity jurisdiction. Under the FRCP, service could be deliveredat his home address to his wife (which is what happened). Under Massachusetts law, service was required to be in hand. Plumer objects that there was insufficient service of process. Statement of the IssueWhen there is a conflict between state law and federal law in service of process, which prevails? HoldingFederalReasoningFor starters, it was clear he got sufficient notice. He filed an answer, he got notice. The procedural/substantive analysis that we used in statute of limitations really doesn’t quite work, because every such decision has an outcome on the final judgment. In this case, the action would probably be barred because we have now passed the 1 year statute of limitations…A better test would be asking whether the laws are in confict, and seeing whether the federal law is one that falls under 28 usc 2072: supreme court shall have the power to prescribe the forms of process, and the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United States in Civil actions. This federal rule of service was enacted by congress and fits within 28 USC 2072. It is a proscribed rule, and really, in hand vs. to wife really doesn’t matter. He was given notice. And this isn’t the sort of rule to cause substantial forum shopping.
View Full Document
Unlocking...