assertion of jurisdiction is based on federal officer or federal enclave status, the Erie substantive/procedural dichotomy also applies with equal force. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), rev’d on other grounds, Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). In Chevron Oil Co., the Supreme Court held that a federal court acting under federal enclave jurisdiction must apply Louisiana’s statute of limitations, as it is “coordinated with the substance of the [state] remedy” and not a mere procedural “housekeeping rule.” Id. at 103, n. 6, 92 S.Ct. 349, citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 473, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8. ; see also Adams v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 792, 796 (W.D.Va.2002) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, under Erie, a federal court acting
holding that the federal rules of civil procedure apply in diversity eases where they are on point unless they both directly conflict with state law and are invalid under the constitution or the rules enabling act holding that the rehabilitation act does not incorporate the adas requirement that the employer have fifteen or more employees holding that ricos reference to state law is not meant to incorporate state procedural law holding that the national parks act does not incorporate state procedural housekeeping rules such as rules of evidence or civil procedure but the act does incorporate outcome determinative state law holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery