Hanna v. Plumer

Background

Petitioner, an Ohio resident injured in a South Carolina car crash, sued in federal court in Massachusetts against the executor of the Massachusetts decedent’s estate. The plaintiff filed the complaint and, two days later, left copies of the summons and complaint with the defendant’s wife at his home. The executor relied on a Massachusetts statute that generally requires in-hand service or filing a special probate notice within one year; lower federal courts held for the executor and dismissed the suit.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the state service rule or Federal Rule 4(d)(1) controls service in diversity cases. The Court held that Rule 4(d)(1) is a valid federal procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act and therefore governs where it plainly applies. The opinion explains that Erie and its progeny do not invalidate a properly adopted Federal Rule of Procedure; when a Federal Rule covers the point, the federal rule controls and the federal court may apply its prescribed method of service.

Real world impact

As a practical result, plaintiffs who sue in federal diversity court can effect service by leaving process at the defendant’s dwelling with a suitable resident, rather than meeting a state requirement of personal in-hand service or a probate filing. Executors and estate administrators should expect federal suits to proceed under the Federal Rule, which can affect how quickly estate claims are filed and resolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan concurred in the judgment but warned that federal rules should not override state policies that regulate primary private affairs; he would defer to state rules when their effect on state-regulated conduct is substantial.