13. Is the court likely to find that the patient's claim is time-barred?

The jurisdiction of federal courts is concurrent with state courts. This means that a particular controversy that is litigable in federal court may also be brought in state court. Where jurisdiction is concurrent, the plaintiff makes the initial decision whether to use state or federal court by filing his case. The defendant may then choose to remove or remain under the state court's jurisdiction.

When determining whether to do an Erie analysis, the threshold question is whether there is a controlling Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or federal statute. If any federal law controls (is «on point»), there is no Erie problem. However, in the absence of a controlling federal statute or Rule, the question becomes whether the issue at hand is substantive or procedural.

In the Erie decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal court sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law of the state in which it sits on all substantive issues in a case. This includes the state's conflict of law rules. For all procedural issues, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply federal procedural rules (the FRCP).

Exam tip: When a potential Erie analysis arises on the MBE, pay close attention to the facts. If the court is not sitting in diversity and is exercising federal question jurisdiction, federal law will apply and there is no need to examine applicable state law.

In some instances, whether an issue is substantive or procedural is considered well-established. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has established that statutes of limitations and rules for tolling statutes of limitations are substantive for Erie purposes; therefore, a federal judge in a diversity case must follow state law on those issues. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945).

«Toll» means to stop the clock from running, for one reason or another. The statute of limitations may be «tolled» because a plaintiff files the claim in a timely manner and therefore, the clock no longer needs to be running. Or the plaintiff may have missed the window because the statute of limitations has tolled and the claim was not filed in time. Finally, the plaintiff may be able to toll the statute of limitations by pausing the clock for a valid reason, such as incapacity. Under any of these scenarios, tolling is used to describe a pause or end to the clock running on the statute of limitations.

A is correct. The issue here is whether to apply State A or federal law around whether the patient's claim is time-barred. Under Guaranty Trust v. York, federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the state laws around statutes of limitations and tolling, as these are considered substantive issues. The facts state that the patient's claim arose on January 5, 2015, which, under State A law, began running the clock on the three-year statute of limitations for State A tort claims. Although the FRCP consider an action commenced when the claim is filed, State A law does not have the same provision and it is State A law that governs.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct conclusion with incorrect legal reasoning. The claim is time-barred, but not because the FRCP apply in diversity cases. In fact, under Erie, the FRCP do apply in diversity cases around procedural issues. However, the FRCP do not apply to statutes of limitations and tolling, as the Court has found these are substantive issues and state laws should be applied in diversity actions.

C is incorrect. This choice implies that the FRCP's rule for commencing the action governs this diversity case, which is incorrect. The Court established in Guaranty Trust that statutes of limitations and rules for tolling statutes of limitations are substantive for Erie purposes. This means the FRCP rule that an action is «commenced» by filing the complaint is not outcome-determinative here, where State A laws apply to the time-barred complaint.

D is incorrect. As explained above, the governing rules in this case are State A laws around statute of limitations and tolling, not the FRCP. Although a federal court sitting in diversity will apply the FRCP to procedural issues, the Court has held that the issues presented here are substantive.