Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In diversity jurisdiction cases, federal courts must apply state statutes of limitations if the statute is outcome-determinative, meaning it would bar recovery in a state court action on the same right.
Facts:
- In May 1930, Van Sweringen Corporation issued $30 million in notes, with Guaranty Trust Co. serving as the trustee for the noteholders.
- In October 1930, Guaranty Trust Co. provided large loans to companies affiliated with the Van Sweringen Corporation.
- In October 1931, with Van Sweringen Corporation facing financial collapse, Guaranty Trust Co. helped create a plan for noteholders to exchange their notes for 50% of their face value in cash plus company stock.
- The exchange offer remained open until December 15, 1931.
- In 1934, respondent York received $6,000 of the notes as a gift from a donor who had not accepted the exchange offer.
- York alleged that Guaranty Trust Co. breached its fiduciary duty by failing to protect the noteholders' interests and not disclosing its own financial self-interest when sponsoring the exchange offer.
Procedural Posture:
- York initiated a class action suit against Guaranty Trust Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, based on diversity of citizenship.
- Guaranty Trust Co. moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by New York's statute of limitations.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Guaranty Trust Co.
- York (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that a federal court in an equity suit is not bound by a state statute of limitations.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction have to apply a state's statute of limitations in a suit based on a state-created right, even if the suit is in equity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
Yes. A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is, in effect, another court of the state and cannot afford recovery if the right to recover is made unavailable by the state's statute of limitations. The crucial question is not whether a statute of limitations is 'substantive' or 'procedural,' but whether it significantly affects the result of the litigation. The policy of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins is to ensure that the outcome of a diversity case in federal court is substantially the same as it would be in a state court, thereby preventing forum shopping and the inequitable administration of the laws. A statute that completely bars recovery in state court is outcome-determinative and must be applied by the federal court, whether the claim is at law or in equity.
Dissenting - Justice Rutledge
No. The Court should not overturn the long-standing federal tradition that statutes of limitations are remedial and do not rigidly bind federal courts in equity cases. Historically, equity jurisprudence, which Congress empowered federal courts to administer, has its own principles, such as the doctrine of laches, for addressing timeliness. By extending the Erie doctrine this far, the majority blurs the line between substance and procedure and encroaches on Congress's authority to define the remedial powers of federal courts. If such a change is to be made, it should come from Congress, not judicial expansion of the Erie doctrine into an area where federal courts have long exercised independent judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly extended the Erie doctrine by establishing the 'outcome-determinative test.' It moved the analysis away from the formalistic labels of 'substance' and 'procedure' toward a more functional inquiry focused on whether applying a different rule in federal court would change the litigation's outcome. This decision greatly reduced the independent power of federal courts, particularly in equity, to apply their own rules in diversity cases. The outcome-determinative test became the guiding principle for Erie analysis for decades, profoundly impacting civil procedure by requiring federal courts to apply a much broader range of state laws.
Unlock the full brief for Guaranty Trust Co. v. York