Berk v. Choy

The Court applied the two-step framework from Shady Grove. First, does a Federal Rule answer the disputed question? The disputed question is whether Berk's lawsuit can be dismissed because his complaint lacked an affidavit. Rule 8 prescribes exactly what a plaintiff must present at the outset of litigation: a short and plain statement of the claim. By requiring no more than a statement, Rule 8 establishes "implicitly, but with unmistakable clarity" that evidence of the claim is not required at the pleading stage.

Rule 12 reinforces this. It provides only one ground for dismissal on the merits: "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." When evaluating that question, courts look only at the complaint's factual allegations and ask whether they "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Delaware's affidavit requirement demands more than Rule 8 allows, and the two rules give different answers to whether Berk's complaint can be dismissed for lacking an affidavit.

Defendants offered two counterarguments. First, they cited Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (1949) for the proposition that state "preconditions to proceeding" are compatible with the Federal Rules. The Court rejected this reading. Cohen held only that a particular state law addressed a matter unaddressed by the relevant Federal Rule. Here, by contrast, Rule 8 and §6853 address the same issue head-on.

Second, defendants argued that Rule 11's proviso ("unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit") incorporates state affidavit laws like §6853. The Court rejected this too. Rule 11 governs the conduct of attorneys and pro se parties, not third-party affidavits. The sentence defendants relied on refers to situations where "represented parties are required by rule or statute to verify pleadings or sign affidavits," not to medical expert affidavits from outside the case.

At the second step, the Court asked whether Rule 8 is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. The test is modest: does the Federal Rule "really regulate procedure"? Rule 8 determines what plaintiffs must present to the court about their claims at the outset of litigation. It regulates "only the process for enforcing those rights, not the rights themselves, the available remedies, or the rules of decision." Defendants argued the Court should also ask whether the displaced state law is substantive. The Court declined, reaffirming that "the substantive nature of [a state] law, or its substantive purpose, makes no difference" to the Federal Rule's validity. Rule 8 is procedural. It governs. Delaware's affidavit law does not apply in federal court.

Jackson concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. She agreed on the result but located the conflict with Federal Rules 3 and 12 rather than Rule 8, arguing the majority's reading of Rule 8 was too expansive.