matter.” He then posed 15 additional questions to lead counsel. The record contains no response from lead counsel providing a more thorough analysis. Thus, viewing the current record in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the question whether Defendant reasonably relied on counsel’s investigation is disputed and material. Despite that issue of fact, for the most part we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim because the remedy that Plaintiff seeks is not available under Montana’s UTPA. Under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), the remedy for a state-law claim — even if brought in federal court — is defined by the state statute that created the claim. See Clausen v. M/V New Canssa, 339 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); 19 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
holding that a right to damages is substantive and governed by state law in a diversity action because the remedy is inseparably connected with the right of action internal quotation marks omitted holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted