Berk v. Choy

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 10 Mar 2025

This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court. Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint. See 18 Del. C. § 6853. An AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct. See id.§ 6853(a)(l). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no conflict" with any Federal Rules. In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that same conclusion." The question presented is: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

A Delaware medical malpractice plaintiff sued in federal court without the state-required affidavit of merit. The question was whether Delaware’s affidavit rule applies in federal court or is displaced by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Justice Barrett wrote that it does not apply. The Court said the first step is whether a Federal Rule answers the same question, and Rule 8 does because it requires only a short and plain statement of the claim, while Rule 12 and Rule 56 supply the procedures for dismissal and summary judgment. Because the Delaware law imposes a different requirement at the pleading stage, it conflicts with the Federal Rules. The Court also rejected the argument that the state rule could be treated as a free-standing evidentiary requirement or fit within Rule 11’s affidavit proviso. The Court held that Rule 8 is valid under the Rules Enabling Act because it regulates procedure, and reversed and remanded.