Amicus Curiae Brief — Salve Regina College v. Russell

.

z

Ly

:

le

‘

z

4

*

-

Y

In THE

‘Gupreme Gourt of the Huited States

OcroBerR TERM, 1990

SALVE REGINA COLLEGE,

SHARON L. RUSSELL,

RESPONDENT

'>

ae

=

>, ©

ok

—

co

— ©

—

— «

_—_

——

-

Cf)

t=

| CO

In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoper TERM, 1990

No. 89-1629

SALVE REGINA COLLEGE,

PETITIONER

SHARON L. RUSSELL,

Pursuant to Rule 37.4 of the Rules

:

i

accompanying :

dent. Respondent has consented to the filing of this brief,

but counsel for petitioner has not responded to Ford’s re-

quest for consent.

Ford’s interest in this case arises from the fact that it

intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review

the judgment of the court of appeals in Ford Motor Co.

190 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 782-0600

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

STEPHEN M. SHAPIRO

Counsel of Record

Mayer, Brown & Platt

MARK I. LEVY

85

i

3

4.

1 34

+

3

i

Ce

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 JAMES D. HOLZHAUER

Langdell Hall

1545 Massachusetts Avenue

(617) 495-4111

M. THO

Motor

Parklane

to emphasize that the longstanding practice of deferring

Respectfully submitted.

to district court determinations of state law leads to more

economy, and best serves the interests underlying Frie.

accurate prediction of state law, promotes judicial

ARTHUR R. MILLER

eerie

cet

ithe

"f 4 i Hf

i it iti : rH i

an hay ne tint Hu

| Te

i

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether a party is entitled to de novo review of a fed-

eral district judge’s determination of state law in a case

in which federal jurisdiction is founded upon diversity of

citizenship.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

QUESTION PRESENTED ................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................. iii

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ..... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................ 2

ARGUMENT

THIS COURT SHOULD REAFFIRM THE LONG-

HELD, MAJORITY VIEW THAT COURTS OF

APPEALS SHOULD DEFER TO DISTRICT

COURT DETERMINATIONS OF STATE LAW

QUESTIONS ...... cece cece cece ee eeeeeees 4

A. Ever Since Erie, The Courts Of Appeals

Have Wisely Deferred To District Court

Determinations Of State Law ......... 5

B. District Court Judges Are Generally In

A Better Position To Determine Issues Of

ED cbc ccdsdscbédbadddaeatnedee i)

C. Deference To District Court Determina-

tions Of State Law Promotes Judicial

BG coccdccuccccdcecceccescosecs 12

D. The Rule Of Deference Best Serves The

Interests Underlying The Erie Doctrine . 14

CORFE AMEEU ccccccccccccccccccesccscesvess 19

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: , PAGE

Alabama Elec. Coop. v. First Nat’l Bank, 684 F.2d

TL, MEE 5 hides odengs cones inane 6

Avery v. Maremont Corp., 628 F.2d 441 (5th Cir.

SD Me ctddolbadssechodbesecscséodscceces 6

Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198

RR ee er eee 2,7, 11

Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976) ......... 11

Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow

Taxicab Co., 276 U.S. 518 (1928) .......... 14, 17

Caspary v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.,

707 F.2d 785 (4th Cir. 1983) .............. 6

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 110 S. Ct. 2447

SE deb ebbibied cheb es Ge advescesendene 4, 5, 11, 13

Craig v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., 843 F.2d

jf 5 & eres rrr 8

Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (1978) ........ 12

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) . passim

Ford Motor Co. v. Mahne, 900 F.2d 83 (6th Cir.

ds eintbenntiemiiads tnt a heehasaseese 1,2,8

Garcia v. Friesecke, 597 F.2d 284 (1st Cir.), cert.

denied, 444 U.S. 940 (1979) ............... 6

Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U.S. 565 (1947) .. 2,7

Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983) ....... 14

Hull vy. Eaton Corp., 825 F.2d 448 (D.C. Cir.

DE «ctl sdb cbenctoesecdnecdbsiieocesss 6

Lamb v. Briggs Mfg., 700 F.2d 1092 (7th Cir.

bale A a ROR ORE INE 6

iv

Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974) .... 12

Lomartira v. American Auto. Ins. Co., 371 F.2d

Ff fF EF Pervert Tr 6

Luke v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 476 F.2d

1015 (8th Cir. 1972), aff'd en banc, 476 F.2d

1023 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 856

DET cnadéecdadenceaeoneeneedencnmeetesese 6

Magill v. Travelers Ins. Co., 133 F.2d 709 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 773 (1943) ..... 5

McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894) ...... 4

McLinn, In re, 739 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1984)

fod GE, ccc ddldescbavode 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18

Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985) ......... 5

Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845

of FR eee ae eee ee 6

Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) ..........

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) .....

Russell v. Turner, 148 F.2d 562 (8th Cir. 1945) ..

Saludes v. Ramos, 744 F.2d 992 (3d Cir. 1984) ..

Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842) ... 14, 15, 18

United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64 (1987) .... 2,7, 11

United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984) .....

Wilson v. Beebe, 770 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1985)

ER Ee Ey ere ee

MISCELLANEOUS:

ALMANAC OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY (1990) ..

American Law Institute, Srupy oF THE DIVISION

OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL

COURTS (1968) .... 2... e eee e cece e eee eeeees

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE AD.-

MINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ET A

Comment, Deference to Federal Circuit Court In-

terpretations of Unsettled State Law: Factors,

Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 1982 Duke LJ.

Corbin, The Laws of the Several States, }0 YALE

i i Agee ied cde cdscasaseseacees

Note, The Law/Fact Distinction and Unsettled Law

in the Federal Courts, 64 Texas L. Rev. 157

GED 6 cbecssdccesevceveccccccoscocccess 9,

Woods, The Erie Enigma: Appellate Review of

Conclusions of Law, 26 Ariz. L. Rev. 755

SET cubebbeshdsssbcsecsccosescesocsoccs

19 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, FEDERAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4507 (1982) ....

11

13, 14

9, 10

10, 12

9, 10

In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OctToBeR TERM, 1990

No. 89-1629

SALVE REGINA COLLEGE,

PETITIONER

SHARON L. RUSSELL,

The Ford Motor Company (“Ford’’) submits this brief

as amicus curiae in support of respondent.

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

As stated in the foregoing motion for leave to file this

brief, Ford’s interest in this case arises from the fact that

it intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to

review the judgment of the court of appeals in Ford

Motor Co. v. Mahne, 900 F.2d 83 (6th Cir. 1990). Mahne

is a product liability action filed as a diversity suit in the

federal district court in Michigan. The district court dis-

missed the suit, holding that under Michigan choice-of-law

AL tt ie GH

TCE i iit if i it

stalin ; itl yy

HETRT il Hy Hee

dae il

FH HE HET

egiq 2: HGnGisihG | GAPEHEL

te lileegiail, Hb

TT ABE PRHEE

Hd ae srt

gatas S2Ebeeetesesi ~ 23989<3

GEE Utitedseat Hat

fa i ite

MAG med ri

in those states are entitled to “great

“special weight.” United States v. H..«r’

64, 74 n.6 (1987); Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co.,

198, 204 (1956); Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U.S.

etn Ra Uy

eal Hine Hp

etal! ately ie

ceil al jeep

Bee ih

aan H He a

THM Ee

i HAE

Bn Ht

es Ht ie

ga: i 4TH. ui

aH ital Au

2

te

pa

hi

i

i

:

"

E

.

E

5

inl

ll

:

3

» *€

In concluding that deference is required, the»courts of

appeals frequently relied on this Court’s acknowledgment

of a district judge’s expertise on matters of local law in

Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198 (1956). “Since

the federal judge making those findings is from the Ver-

mont bar, we give special weight to his statement of what

the Vermont law is.” 350 U.S. at 204. This Court made

the same point in United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64,

74 n.6 (1987):

[These cases are tried before local federal district

j who are likely to be familiar with the appli-

state law. Indeed, a district judge’s determina-

tion of a state-law question usually is reviewed with

great deference.

See also Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U.S. 565, 575 (1947)

(“{t}hat construction of New Jersey law made by a federal

judge of the New Jersey District Court is entitled to spe-

cial weight”).

None of the courts of appeals has held that district

court determinations of state law are conclusively pre-

sumed to be correct. To the contrary, the courts acknowl-

edge that parties to diversity actions are entitled to mean-

ingful appellate review of state law determinations. But

when the state’s highest court has not spoken on the

issue, and more than one reasonable interpretation of the

law of a state is possible, that given by the district court

sitting in the state is entitled to considerable deference.

In this case, the First Circuit applied the traditional rule,

and upheld the district court’s reasonable state-law deter-

mination “{iJn view of the customary appellate deference

accorded to interpretations of state law made by federal

judges of that state.” Pet. App. 12.

In 1984, by a 6-5 vote, the Ninth Circuit radically de-

parted from the traditional requirement of deference, hold-

«<Q

ing that de novo review of all district court determina-

tions of state law was mandatory. In re McLinn, 739 F.2d

1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc). Although most of the courts

of appeals have revisited the deference issue since McLinn

was decided, before the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Mahne

only the Third Circuit followed McLinn and discarded the

rule of deference.”

As the five dissenting judges in McLinn pointed out

(739 F.2d at 1408), the Ninth Circuit majority required

de novo review without analyzing the purpose of the tradi-

tional rule of deference or the practical effect of its re-

jection:

The result can only serve as a disincentive to our

district courts to explore and e the authorities

which bear on an issue of local law. It will tend to

ep the litigants of the benefit of that effort. It

unsuccessful counsel to appeal on the

assumption reversals will become more frequent.

Our own work will multiply. sry Rew de omen Ml

rives at this result without an anal

and ts Che tate of evepeihabaien eaibestly ~~

other circuits. We are not told why this novel view,

rather than the standards i by other circuit

courts, is required to reach a just result in this or

any other case

Indeed, close examination reveals that deference to dis-

making, conserves judicial resources, and gives full respect

to the interests of federalism underlying the Erie doctrine.

2 Craig v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Lid., 843 F.2d 145, 148 (3d

Cir. 1 In Mahne, the Circuit failed to apply the rule

of deference without explanation of its rationale.

7<

B. District Court Judges Are Generally In A Better Posi-

tion To Determine Issues Of State Law

As this Court, several commentators,’ and nearly all of

the courts of appeals have recognized, district judges are

generally in a better position to determine issues of state

law than court of appeals judges. This is true for two rea-

sons. First, district judges regularly try diversity cases

governed by the law of the forum state. They are thus

likely to achieve a substantial working familiarity with

state law. “As a practical matter district judges hear a

great number of cases involving the law of their home

states.” In re McLinn, 739 F.2d at 1405 (Schroeder, J.,

dissenting).* In fact, diversity cases account for more than

24% of the docket of federal district courts. ANNUAL RE-

PORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

OF THE UNITED States Courts 9 Table 4, 14 Table 5

(1988). By contrast, less than 15% of the courts of appeals’

docket consists of diversity cases, and each circuit has

jurisdiction over several states. Jd. at 145-146 Table 814A.

A district judge sitting in a particular state thus spends

far more time considering issues arising under the law

of that state than a circuit judge could be expected to

Rev. 7565, D9 (1984); Note The LawFoct resis?

;

°

3

.

i

i

z

=

3

eS

at

atk?

R

state

where he or Aye 4) 44h phe

(Footnote continued on following page)

:

d

‘

i

:

=f}

(7.6% 15%) of the First Circuit docket that consists of Rhode

ne Sey ee Se ee ee 150 Table B 3

aA A, t,t. A J. ee Se

more Rhode Island diversity cases than Circuit judges

® See also 19 C. Wright, A. Miller & C. Cooper, FepeRAL Prac

TICE AND PROCEDURE § 4507 at 106 (“{ajs a general .

a federal court who sits in a particular state, one

A ee NI Le

enfin

in Bernhardt, holding that “{s}ince the federal judge mak-

ing those findings is from the Vermont bar, we give spe-

cial weight to his statement of what the Vermont law is.”

350 U.S. at 204. See also Cooter & Gell, 110 S. Ct. at

2460 (deference to district court legal determinations

under Rule 11 is warranted because “{tJhe district court

is best acquainted with the local bar’s litigation prac-

tices”); United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. at 74 n.6 (“local

federal district judges * * * are likely to be familiar with

the applicable state law’’).’

This case supplies a good example. The state-law deter-

mination at issue was made by District Judge Ronald R.

Lagueux. Judge Lagueux practiced law in Rhode Island

for thirteen years and was Associate Justice of the Rhode

Island Superior Court for eighteen additional years before

becoming a federal district judge. 1 ALMANAC OF THE

FEDERAL JUDICIARY Ist Circuit 17 (1990). The court of

appeals panel that reviewed the decision consisted of cir-

cuit judges from New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Con-

necticut. In these circumstances, it was certainly prudent

for the court of appeals to defer to Judge Lagueux’s ex-

pert judgment on the law of Rhode Island.

HET THRRUTIIEE TH

i ee ti Hit

43f i Hil athe qi li lh ;

tli La fe:

ay Fil Hi ie

Hii diitl TRH Pea

HELE Hague au

j Eesttatay m

: HALHIE THE

: at ef A ii: HLL

| isl alee i ial :

7 nate iit HHT i ti

i Hite BH iit i

! et il aia rf

DRT ML GM

g] eee f

TF hl iin is EE 3 Hil

ie ata i : inl HH

, Ht jill

ot Wiehil ;

it jes il } THB

bea i

White HTH ‘al

a a MN)

if ad | aapallings te

iy aft bin Hi

fi anal dipies ci Het

a lili mii day

OAL niles nail Hn

“GED Pan it

aad iu fiat AGE HAE

+ £ A

a

Hi LEE E 3 auth

Ente iil i HUH

i Wain aT ni i Hi

Hie ad 3 lien He i Hi

F HEH ibs ip

neat a i te

in AIRE i it

met his ii: HH HEHE at

Hit tts HAT ve, fu

nue ee Mati

Hearn ideal athL il

I

Li i

i

iL

19—

The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.

wt

iste

anf

it E = 5 Hf

HL

HTT a

‘ae