Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Civil Procedure
446 U.S. 740 (1980)
Updated
Civil ProcedureErie doctrineDiversity jurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureStatute of limitationsErieHannaRagan
Facts
Petitioner alleged that he was injured in Oklahoma on August 22, 1975, by a nail manufactured by respondent. He filed his complaint in federal district court on August 19, 1977, within Oklahoma's two-year limitations period, but respondent was not served until December 1, 1977. Under Oklahoma law, an action is not commenced for limitations purposes until service of summons, unless service follows filing within 60 days. Service here occurred after both the two-year period and the 60-day grace period had expired.
Issue
In a diversity action based on state law, should a federal court use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 or state law to determine when the action is commenced for purposes of tolling the state statute of limitations? More specifically, does filing the complaint under Rule 3 toll the Oklahoma statute of limitations despite Oklahoma's rule requiring timely service?
Rule
Where no Federal Rule directly covers the point in dispute, Erie requires application of state law in diversity cases. Rule 3, which states that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint, governs the timing of matters under the Federal Rules but does not toll a state statute of limitations or displace a state service requirement that is an integral part of the state's limitations policy.
🔒
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.
Nina Alvarez, a Nevada citizen, sued Great Basin Fabrication, Inc., an Oregon corporation, in federal court in Reno on a state-law negligence claim arising from an accident in Nevada. She filed her complaint three days before Nevada’s two-year limitations period expired, but Nevada law provides that an action is commenced for limitations purposes only upon service unless service follows filing within 30 days, and Nina served the defendant 75 days after filing.
Is Nina’s action timely in federal court?
Explanation. The action is untimely. In a diversity case based on state law, the court must first ask whether the Federal Rule is broad enough to control the precise issue. Rule 3 states that an action is commenced by filing, but it governs timing under the Federal Rules and does not itself toll a state statute of limitations. Where state law makes service an integral part of its limitations policy, that state rule applies under Erie, so late service means the claim is barred.