Should court apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or State Law? Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S.

. 460, 463-465, 469-474 (1965) (federal court must apply federal rule if both conditions are met: 1) scope of rule is "sufficiently broad to cover the situation"; and 2) rule is (a) constitutional and (b) a valid exercise of the Supreme Court's rule-making power under the federal Rules Enabling Act). NOTE: if there is no conflict between federal rule and state law, the Hanna Rules Enabling Act analysis is irrelevant direct collision not necessary so long as fed rule is sufficiently broad a federal rule of civil procedure is valid if it regulates matters commonly understood as procedural and matters that, although falling within the uncertain area between substance and procedure, are rationally capable of classification as either. Hanna, at 464. **NOTE: 5th Circuit seems to apply a test under the federal Rules Enabling Act that centers on whether the federal rule is invalid because it enlarges or abridges state substantive rights. See Affholder , Inc. v. Southern Rock, Inc., 746 F.2d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 1984) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 applied instead of MS statute assessing fixed penalty against unsuccessful appellant). Compare Douglas v. NCNB Texas Nat'l Bank, 979 F.2d 1128, 1129-1131 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding federal rule invalid). In cases NOT involving a choice between state law and a federal rule of civil procedure, 5th Circuit relies on traditional distinctions between substance and procedure and apply state rule if court deems rule "substantive" (or an element of a claim) and the federal rule if it's procedural, regardless of the outcome of the case. See In Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana on July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147, 1157 (5th Cir. 1987), vacated on other grounds, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989) (federal doctrine of forum non conveniens applied to permit dismissal to foreign jurisdiction because doctrine is procedural.)