The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge
Generally, in deciding what state law to apply, a federal court applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits. See Kohlrautz v. Oilmen Participation Corp., 441 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 2006). "After a transfer pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] § 1404(a), however, 'the transferee district court generally must apply the state law that the transferor district court would have applied had the case not been transferred.'" Maluia v. Corrections Corp. of Am., Inc., Civ. No. 11-00735 SOMBMK, 2012 WL 75052, at *3 (D. Haw. Jan. 10, 2012) (quoting Shannon--Vail Five Inc. v. Bunch, 270 F.3d 1207, 1210 (9th Cir. 2001)). This includes the conflicts of law rules of the transferor court's forum state. See Shannon-Vail Five Inc., 270 F.3d at 1210; Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1459 (9th Cir. 1994) (applying the choice-of-law rules of Illinois because the case was transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) from the Northern District of Illinois).
Pursuant to Ohio law, the party asserting the law of another state applies "must show, at the outset, the existence of a genuine conflict between Ohio law and the law of the foreign jurisdiction." Sirlouis v. Four Winds Intern. Corp., 2012 WL 1068709, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2012) (citing Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 861 N.E.2d 109 (Ohio 2006)). Thus, A-1, who seeks to apply Hawaii law, has the burden of showing an actual conflict exists.
Consequently, A-1 (or any other party seeking the application of Hawaii law) may file supplemental briefing to address whether an actual conflict exist between Ohio and Hawaii law on the issues in this case.*fn1 Supplemental briefing should be filed by noon on Monday, May 21, 2012.
Soprema, Inc. v. Beachside Roofing, et al.,
Civ. No. 10-00188 ACK-BMK: