New article argues for application of state summary judgment standards in diversity cases under Stevens’ view in Shady Grove

In Shady Grove, the Rules Enabling Act, and the Application of State Summary Judgment Standards in Federal Diversity Cases, forthcoming in St. John’s Law Review, Professor Matthew Lyon of Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law argues:

that Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion in Shady Grove (which, following the “narrowest grounds” rule of Marks, is the controlling precedent on the section 2072(b) issue) has revived the possibility that a Federal Rule that otherwise controls the issue in dispute might be invalidated under the REA as abridging, enlarging, or modifying a substantive right.  This is the view taken by a number of post-Shady Grove lower court decisions discussed in the article.  The specific “substantive right” on which the article focuses is that conferred by states with more liberal summary judgment standards than the federal standard.  Ultimately, it is plausible that Shady Grove may open the door to the application of state summary judgment standards by courts sitting in diversity. 

The SSRN cite is here.

--PHM