Berk v. Choy · ¶45

Per Shady Grove, once a confict between the State's requirement and a Federal Rule has been identified, the Federal Rule displaces the State's requirement so long as the Rule is “valid,” meaning that it “governs only `the manner and the means' by which the litigants' rights are `enforced.' ” 559 U. S., at 407 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mississippi Pub lishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 446 (1946)); see also 28 U. S. C. § 2072(b) (Rules Enabling Act). And for similar reasons to those given in Part II–B of the majority opinion, Rule 3 easily satisfes this standard. See ante, at 198–199; see also Shady Grove, 559 U. S., at 407 (plurality opinion) (noting that we have “rejected every statutory challenge to a Federal Rule that has come before us”).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.