Case 24-440, Burke v. Choi.

Mr. Tut.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

Delaware law provides that no medical malpractice complaint may even be docketed

unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit.

That requirement conflicts with more than a half dozen federal rules of civil

procedure. It conflicts with Rules 8 and 9, which set forth what a plaintiff must do to state

a claim in federal court. And it conflicts with Rule 11, which bars verification in affidavit

requirements unless a federal rule or statute provides otherwise.

Given its unavoidable conflicts with multiple federal rules, Delaware's law cannot apply in

federal court.

Seeing that these conflicts are insurmountable, respondent seek refuge in Rule 11A,

which says a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit,

quote, unless a ruler statute specifically states otherwise, close quote.

They say statute in that proviso means state statute.

But context matters and respondents ignore it.

A mountain of context confirms that the word statute in Rule 11A refers to federal

laws, not state laws. The rules text, context, history, and purpose make respondents'

Rule 11A argument impossible. Rule 11 was meant to abolish, not preserve a patchwork of

state affidavit rules like Delaware's.

Under respondents reading, Rule 11 abolished nothing at all.

Respondents called Delaware's rule substantive, but Delaware's law is procedural from tip to tail.

...