to make offers to defendants. See Delta Air Lines, 450 U.S. at 350, 101 S.Ct. at 1149 (“The Rule has no application to offers made by the plaintiff.”). BNSF correctly notes that Boyd, as plaintiff, could not have recovered double costs if he had brought suit in federal court. The question then becomes whether the unavailability of double costs for plaintiffs in federal court is a sufficient difference in outcome to warrant preemption. Both Felder and Johnson analyzed the difference in outcomes between state and federal courts, in the context of § 1983 actions, because different outcomes would show that application of the state rule was “inconsistent with [the] federal interest in intrastate uniformity” underlying § 1983. Felder, 487 U 49, 63 S.Ct. 246, 253, 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942) (<HOLDING>). Johnson provides an example of a state rule
holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted holding that the plaintiff was denied the benefit of the bargain and therefore had standing where plaintiff did not receive the full number of agreedupon minutes he purchased in a wireless cellular phone service agreement holding that state burdenofproof rule was not a mere incident of form of procedure and denied admiralty plaintiff the benefit of the full scope of federally created rights holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid