5 ms·

To be clear, this isn't a choice-of-law case. It's not about whether California law applies. It's about whether a court in California has jurisdiction; that is,

To be clear, this isn't a choice-of-law case. It's not about whether California law applies. It's about whether a court in California has jurisdiction; that is, whether it can hear the case at all.

dpifke 2y ago
Could a tort claim under California state law be heard in any other court (assuming no accompanying Federal claims)?
- otterley 2y ago
  Yes. Choice-of-law terms are frequently found in contracts. When interpreting the law, the court with jurisdiction will do its best to refer to and interpret existing law of the state in question to the case.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - dpifke 2y ago
    (I deleted my original reply, which was maybe conflating several different arguments. I'll try to restate my point more succinctly. IANAL, so it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding the legal issues at play.) The linked opinion's discussion of jurisdiction seems to be about whether the case can be heard in any court, not if there's an alternate venue that would be more proper. FWIW, the retailer's web site[0] does not seem to contain a terms of service or anything with a choice-of-law provision. If the argument is that no court has jurisdiction in which the plaintiff can seek redress, that seems equivalent to saying that the law doesn't apply to the defendants. Shopify already exercises a huge amount of discretion as to which businesses it's willing to provide services for, and how much it charges them. It does not seem unreasonable to me that the company would either a) be willing to answer to California courts, or b) stop selling its services to California retailers. [0]: https://www.iambecoming.com/pages/who-we-are https://www.iambecoming.com/pages/who-we-are
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 2y ago
      There is definitely one state, which is New York (where its U.S. HQ is). Another is possibly Delaware in which its U.S. entity is incorporated. That’s why the author said that when the court stated that it would be absurd if there were no state that had jurisdiction, the court was being misleading, because there is always at least one state in which a U.S. entity is subject to jurisdiction.
Quarrel 2y ago
It also isn't against the Californian company. It was Shopify which is not a Californian company. Seems bizarre to me that several lower courts ruled in favor of Shopify though..
- bluGill 2y ago
  Shopify on behalf of a california company
ajross 2y ago
That seems like a meaningless distinction. If you can't have a case heard by a state court, then that state's laws can't be applied, by definition.
- otterley 2y ago
  That is not true. State courts can apply foreign state laws, and federal courts can apply any state’s laws.
  - ajross 2y ago
    Again that seems needlessly pedantic. Has there ever been a case where a court applied a law from a regime where that regime's own courts lack jurisdiction? Again, in practice "laws apply" and "courts have jurisdiction" are isomorphic states. Complaining about an article making the very reasonable conflation seems nitpicky and silly.
    - soco 2y ago
      I don't know how it is within the US but in Europe this is a common occurrence. Contracts with choice of law, international succession procedures, civil liabilities... even arbitration.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 2y ago
      The article didn’t make that conflation at all. The author, a former professor of mine in law school, knows what he’s talking about (as do I). It was the commenter who was confused (as are you). Jurisdiction has nothing to do with whether laws are applicable to a case. It has to do with whether a particular court can hear a case. Personal jurisdiction questions go back hundreds of years to resolve issues like “is it just to force a defendant to travel hundreds of miles by horse and carriage to defend himself?” versus allowing him to defend himself closer to home. If the plaintiff sued Shopify in New York, this issue wouldn't have come up at all. (And, yes, a New York court can apply California law.) This stuff is all covered in first-year civil procedure in law school.

To be clear, this isn't a choice-of-law case. It's not about whether California law applies. It's about whether a court in California has jurisdiction; that is, whether it can hear the case at all.

dpifke 2y ago

Could a tort claim under California state law be heard in any other court (assuming no accompanying Federal claims)?

otterley 2y ago
Yes. Choice-of-law terms are frequently found in contracts. When interpreting the law, the court with jurisdiction will do its best to refer to and interpret existing law of the state in question to the case.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dpifke 2y ago
  (I deleted my original reply, which was maybe conflating several different arguments. I'll try to restate my point more succinctly. IANAL, so it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding the legal issues at play.) The linked opinion's discussion of jurisdiction seems to be about whether the case can be heard in any court, not if there's an alternate venue that would be more proper. FWIW, the retailer's web site[0] does not seem to contain a terms of service or anything with a choice-of-law provision. If the argument is that no court has jurisdiction in which the plaintiff can seek redress, that seems equivalent to saying that the law doesn't apply to the defendants. Shopify already exercises a huge amount of discretion as to which businesses it's willing to provide services for, and how much it charges them. It does not seem unreasonable to me that the company would either a) be willing to answer to California courts, or b) stop selling its services to California retailers. [0]: https://www.iambecoming.com/pages/who-we-are https://www.iambecoming.com/pages/who-we-are
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 2y ago
    There is definitely one state, which is New York (where its U.S. HQ is). Another is possibly Delaware in which its U.S. entity is incorporated. That’s why the author said that when the court stated that it would be absurd if there were no state that had jurisdiction, the court was being misleading, because there is always at least one state in which a U.S. entity is subject to jurisdiction.

Quarrel 2y ago

It also isn't against the Californian company. It was Shopify which is not a Californian company. Seems bizarre to me that several lower courts ruled in favor of Shopify though..

bluGill 2y ago
Shopify on behalf of a california company

ajross 2y ago

That seems like a meaningless distinction. If you can't have a case heard by a state court, then that state's laws can't be applied, by definition.

otterley 2y ago
That is not true. State courts can apply foreign state laws, and federal courts can apply any state’s laws.
- ajross 2y ago
  Again that seems needlessly pedantic. Has there ever been a case where a court applied a law from a regime where that regime's own courts lack jurisdiction? Again, in practice "laws apply" and "courts have jurisdiction" are isomorphic states. Complaining about an article making the very reasonable conflation seems nitpicky and silly.
  - soco 2y ago
    I don't know how it is within the US but in Europe this is a common occurrence. Contracts with choice of law, international succession procedures, civil liabilities... even arbitration.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 2y ago
    The article didn’t make that conflation at all. The author, a former professor of mine in law school, knows what he’s talking about (as do I). It was the commenter who was confused (as are you). Jurisdiction has nothing to do with whether laws are applicable to a case. It has to do with whether a particular court can hear a case. Personal jurisdiction questions go back hundreds of years to resolve issues like “is it just to force a defendant to travel hundreds of miles by horse and carriage to defend himself?” versus allowing him to defend himself closer to home. If the plaintiff sued Shopify in New York, this issue wouldn't have come up at all. (And, yes, a New York court can apply California law.) This stuff is all covered in first-year civil procedure in law school.