Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV11355, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11355    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE CHOICE OF LAW MOTION

On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff Virginia B. Adams filed this action alleging she developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products.  On December 29, 2023, Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company filed a choice of law motion requesting the application of New Mexico law as to apportionment of damages.  (Motion at p. 3.)

When a case involves a significant relationship to more than one state, the court selects the appropriate state law to apply to the case.  (Hurtado v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574, 579-80.)  When there is no choice of law agreement, but the action involves the significant interests of another state, the court may analyze the governmental interests of the various jurisdictions involved to select the most appropriate law.  (Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 915.)

Choice-of-law arguments are determined by a three-part test known as the “governmental interest” analysis.  “‘First, the court determines whether the relevant law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the particular issue in question is the same or different.  Second, if there is a difference, the court examines each jurisdiction’s interest in the application of its own law under the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether a true conflict exists.  Third, if the court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and compares the nature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction in the application of its own law “to determine which state’s interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state” [citation] and then ultimately applies “the law of the state whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not applied.”’” (McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 Cal.4th 68, 87-88.)

A.        Laws of California and New Mexico

Under California law, defendants are severally liable for non-economic damages but are jointly and severally liable for economic damages.  (Civ. Code, § 1431.2(a).)  Under New Mexico law, defendants are severally liable for both economic and noneconomic damages with limited exceptions.  (N.M. Stat. Ann., § 41-3A-1.)

Comparing the two jurisdictions’ laws for apportionment of damages, the court finds that the first step of the governmental interest analysis has been satisfied.  Plaintiff does not dispute that the first step of governmental interest is satisfied.  (Opposition at p. 7.)

B.        California’s and New Mexico’s Interests

Defendant argues New Mexico has an interest because Plaintiff is a long-term resident of New Mexico where she lived from 1963 to 1978 and from 2002 to the present.  (Motion at p. 3; Strunk Decl., Ex. B at pp. 389, 500-501.)  Adams’ disease and her symptoms manifested in New Mexico, her treatment and care are in New Mexico, New Mexico taxpayers bear the burden of her consumption of benefits, and New Mexico has an interest in protecting companies that do business in New Mexico from exaggerated claims and in regulating conduct that occurs within the state.  (Motion at p. 8.)  Defendant contends California has no interest in applying its laws because “California has no connection to [Plaintiff].”  (Ibid.) 

Plaintiff argues that the majority of her exposure to asbestos-containing products occurred in California where she lived for 50 years.  (Opposition at p. 3.)  She was allegedly exposed to asbestos in California for twenty-nine years from 1948 to 1963 and 1978 to the 1990s, and she was allegedly exposed to asbestos in New Mexico for fourteen years from 1963 to 1977.  (Id. at pp. 3-5.)  With respect to the one product from Defendant that is at issue in this case – Cashmere Bouquet body powder – Plaintiff’s exposure occurred only in California when she lived in that state.  (Id. at pp. 4, 5.)  

The interest of New Mexico in its law limiting damages by making defendants only severally liable “is to protect defendants from excessive financial burdens or exaggerated claims.”  (Hurtado, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 580-581.)  Thus, New Mexico has a legitimate interest in applying its law in this case.

Defendant’s statement that California has no interest here because it has no connection to Plaintiff is obviously wrong.  Plaintiff lived in California for much longer than she lived in New Mexico, was alleged exposed to asbestos in California for many more years than she was exposed in New Mexico, and used Defendant’s product only in California.  California has an interest in deterring wrongful conduct within its borders, and a law expanding the amount of recoverable damages against a defendant “strengthens the deterrent aspect of the civil sanction.”  (Hurtado, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 583-584.)  Thus, California has an interest in applying its law about joint and several damages to Defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct occurring in California.

Because legitimate interest of both states would be furthered by application of their respective apportionment standards in this case, the issue remains in genuine conflict following the second step of the choice of law analysis.

C.        Weighing of Interests

In McCann, the court held that a failure to apply Oklahoma law would significantly impair Oklahoma’s interest because the exposure to asbestos in the defendant’s product occurred in Oklahoma while the plaintiff was a resident of Oklahoma, and the state where the exposure occurs has “the predominant interest” in regulating conduct that occurs within its borders.  (McCann, supra, 48 Cal.4th 68 at pp. 97-98.)  In comparison, the court held that a failure to apply California law in that case would cause a far less significant impairment of California’s interests.  California had less of an interest because the defendant’s wrongful conduct occurred outside California.  (Id. at p. 99.) 

Here the situation is the converse.  The alleged exposure to asbestos in Defendant’s product occurred in California while Plaintiff lived in California.  Defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct – selling an asbestos-containing product – occurred in California.  Thus, Defendant’s argument that New Mexico has an interest in regulating conduct occurring in its state and protecting companies doing business within its borders from excessive financial burden carries little weight because the claims against Defendant do not arise from its conduct in New Mexico.  In this case, New Mexico does not have as much of an interest in regulating business activities taking place in California as California does.

Defendant argues that “California has no compelling interest in compensating non-resident plaintiffs for injuries that occurred in foreign states.”  (Motion at p. 8.)  But Plaintiff’s exposure to Defendant’s allegedly asbestos-containing product occurred exclusively in California, which Defendant does not dispute.  California has the “predominant interest” in regulating the exposure to asbestos occurring within California (McCann, supra, 48 Cal.4th 68 at pp. 97-98) and in deterring wrongful conduct within California through more expansive damages.  (Hurtado, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 583-584.)     

Weighing the interests of the two states, the court finds that California has the predominant interest in regulating conduct that occurred within its borders and a failure to apply California law would significantly impair California’s interest.

Defendant’s motion for choice of law is DENIED.

The moving party is ordered to give notice.