Supreme Court of the United States · 1949 · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureEriediversity jurisdictionstatute of limitationscommencement of actionservice of process
Facts
The highway accident occurred on October 1, 1943. The plaintiff filed the complaint in federal district court on September 4, 1945, and summons was issued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but valid service was not had until December 28, 1945; an earlier summons had been quashed. Kansas had a two-year statute of limitations for the tort claim and a statute providing that an action is deemed commenced, for limitations purposes, on the date of summons served on the defendant, with a limited diligent-attempt provision. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations and argued that the action was untimely because service occurred after the two-year period expired.
Issue
In a diversity action based on state law, does filing a complaint in federal court under Rule 3 toll the state statute of limitations when the forum state's law treats service of summons within the statutory period as the event that commences the action for limitations purposes?
Rule
When a federal diversity action seeks to enforce a cause of action created by state law, the federal court must apply state law that determines the life of that cause of action, including a state rule making timely service an integral part of the statute of limitations. A federal court may not give the state-created claim longer life by treating Rule 3 filing alone as tolling the statute when state law would bar the claim in state court.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Nadia Flores, a New Mexico citizen, sued Blue Mesa Logistics, Inc., a Colorado corporation, in federal court in Denver for negligence under Colorado law after a warehouse injury in Pueblo. She filed her complaint three days before Colorado’s limitations period expired, but valid service was not made until three weeks after expiration. Colorado law provides that, for limitations purposes, an action is commenced only upon service, and Colorado courts treat that rule as part of the limitations scheme.
Is Nadia’s suit timely in federal court?
Explanation. The majority rule is that in a diversity action enforcing a state-created claim, the federal court may not give the claim longer life than it would have in state court. If state law treats service within the limitations period as an integral part of the limitations rule, filing under Rule 3 properly commences the federal action procedurally but does not toll the state statute. Because the claim would be barred in state court, it is barred in federal court as well. (Derived from Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co. (1949).)