Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339, 1347 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 50, 133 L.Ed.2d 15 (1995). If the facts of a case are undisputed, as they are here, one of the parties is clearly entitled to summary judgment. Niecko v. Emro Mktg., 973 F.2d 1296, 1304 (6th Cir.1992). B. Choice of Law. The parties agree with the district court that, under Walker, 446 U.S. at 753, 100 S.Ct. at 1986, the Michigan statute of limitations controls in this diversity case. They also agree with the general principle that, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), and its progeny, a blend of federal procedural law and state substantive law controls this case. See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 471-74, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 1144-46, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965) (<HOLDING>); see also Walker, 446 U.S. at 749-50, 100
holding that federal court sitting in diversity should apply fed r crv p 4 rather than conflicting state rule because federal rule was consistent with rules enabling act holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies 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 federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that state substantive rules of decision apply in federal diversity cases