Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Insurance
176 L. Ed. 2d 311, 559 U.S. 393, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2929 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure directly conflicts with a state law, the federal rule governs in a federal diversity action as long as the rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. A federal rule is valid under the Act if it 'really regulates procedure,' regardless of its incidental effects on state substantive policies or the outcome of the litigation.
Facts:
- Sonia Galvez was injured in an automobile accident and received medical care from Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A.
- As partial payment, Galvez assigned her rights to insurance benefits under a policy issued by Allstate Insurance Co. to Shady Grove.
- Shady Grove submitted a claim for these benefits to Allstate.
- Under New York law, Allstate had 30 days to pay or deny the claim.
- Allstate paid the claim but did so after the 30-day deadline had passed.
- Allstate subsequently refused to pay the statutory interest (at two percent per month) that had accrued on the overdue benefits, as required by New York law.
- Shady Grove sought to bring a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated, potentially turning a $500 individual claim into millions in aggregate damages.
Procedural Posture:
- Shady Grove filed a diversity suit against Allstate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking to proceed as a class action.
- The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling that New York's law (§ 901(b)) prohibiting class actions for statutory penalties applied in federal court and barred the action.
- The District Court noted that without the class action, Shady Grove's individual claim did not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
- Shady Grove, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit, with Allstate as appellee, affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that there was no direct conflict between Rule 23 and § 901(b), and that the New York law was substantive for Erie purposes.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which establishes the criteria for maintaining a class action, displace a conflicting state law that prohibits class actions for claims seeking statutory penalties in a federal court sitting in diversity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 displaces New York's law and permits the class action to proceed in federal court. First, there is a direct conflict between the federal rule and the state law. Rule 23 provides a comprehensive framework stating that a class action 'may be maintained' if its criteria are met, while New York's § 901(b) states that an action for penalties 'may not be maintained' as a class action. This is an unavoidable collision. Second, Rule 23 is a valid exercise of rulemaking authority under the Rules Enabling Act. The test for validity is whether the rule 'really regulates procedure.' Rule 23 regulates only the 'manner and the means' by which rights are enforced through class aggregation; it does not alter the substantive rights themselves. The substantive or procedural nature of the displaced state law is irrelevant; what matters is the procedural nature of the Federal Rule itself. The fact that applying the rule may affect the outcome or induce forum-shopping is an 'incidental effect' that does not invalidate a valid procedural rule. Class actions are quintessentially procedural devices that allow multiple plaintiffs to join their claims for efficiency.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 applies because the state law it displaces is procedural and not a part of New York's substantive law. While a federal rule must give way if it abridges, enlarges, or modifies a state substantive right, that is not the situation here. The proper test requires examining whether the state rule is so 'bound up with' a state-created right that it defines the scope of that right. New York's § 901(b) is a general procedural rule governing class actions in its own courts, as evidenced by the fact that its text applies to claims based on any state's law or federal law, not just New York claims. Because § 901(b) does not function as part of New York's definition of its substantive rights or remedies, applying the conflicting Rule 23 does not violate the Rules Enabling Act. The availability of class action procedures is a matter of judicial administration, not substantive law.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 should not be interpreted to displace New York's law. There is no necessary conflict between the two provisions if Rule 23 is read with sensitivity to important state interests. Rule 23 governs the procedural aspects of class litigation (the criteria for certification), whereas § 901(b) defines the dimensions of the substantive remedy itself by limiting the availability of aggregated statutory penalties. New York enacted § 901(b) not to regulate court procedure, but for the substantive purpose of preventing 'annihilating punishment' of defendants through massive class action liability. The state deliberately chose to limit the remedy available for certain violations to prevent the crushing liability that can result from aggregating thousands of small penalty claims. Because there is no direct collision, the Erie doctrine applies, and the state law should control to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the laws. Allowing the class action transforms a $500 state claim into a potential $5 million federal judgment, directly contravening Erie's twin aims.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts class action litigation by reinforcing the supremacy of Federal Rule 23 in federal diversity cases. The case turns on the fundamental question of whether class action availability is a procedural matter (governed by federal rules) or a substantive limitation on remedies (governed by state law). The majority's approach focuses strictly on whether Rule 23 itself 'really regulates procedure,' dismissing the purpose or effect of the conflicting state law as irrelevant. This creates a bright-line rule that simplifies the analysis but explicitly accepts increased forum shopping as an acceptable consequence. The ruling is particularly significant for class actions seeking statutory penalties or minimum damages, as it allows plaintiffs to circumvent state-law restrictions by filing in federal court. The decision demonstrates the continuing vitality of the Hanna v. Plumer framework and shows that valid Federal Rules will almost always trump conflicting state laws, even when the state law serves important substantive policies. For practitioners, this means that the availability of class action procedures in federal diversity cases will be determined almost exclusively by Rule 23, regardless of state-law limitations designed to protect defendants from aggregate liability.
Unlock the full brief for Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Insurance