i'll endeavor to reserve four minutes for rebuttal when plaintiff was fifteen years old two employees of logan river academy showed up at her school and transported her against her will parents wanted her to go there and they had to arrange for transportation there's there's nothing in the complaint that really provides the information we need to know that this was a kidnapping essentially well and i think i think i mean just to be clear the allegation of the complaint is that it was against her will yeah well as it is a little bit about what that means it might have been that it was her parents decision that would be against her will that has different consequences from someone from the academy just coming in and kidnapping her and i i wouldn't dispute that but the point is is that we're alleging this from the perspective of the fifteen year old girl it will point you have i think that california law should govern because she was kidnapped from california to start this on frances and that depends a bit on what you mean by suggests this was far from a from a kidnapping well i want to be clear week we include very clear factual allegations about the involuntary nature of the transport in the sense that she showed up at school there were two agents from logan river who approached her in the backroom they told her that this could go the easy way or the hard way that they might need to place or in handcuffs if she  knows i mean this is a case where she doesn't need discovery she knows this these facts better than the fende were used as well as the when she well then so the defendant can discover those facts but the point is that not only did she was against her or with her parents and no authority authorized it if her parents authorized it which is not part of your complaint one way or another it could have a drastic impact on your case your well i think it could influence which law applies i don't know if i would the no i don't think so i mean i think we have to create a colorable question a plaza bill claim based on the underlying circumstances based on the fact that she showed up at school and was and was taken by these two individuals that the district court you know i'm not aware of any law that says this is that this was authorized by some someone else and it certainly forms in the situation or a cases transferred from one state to another whereas the forum state the forum state is the transfer transfer or a court but it can be different when it comes to statute of limitations well and that's what i see and maybe the terminology on the cases that i'm aware of and includes fer as the forum as the controlling court in essence we were sitting in that court shoes were flying that court's law and so in every respect i think it is the forum for purposes of but choice of law analysis in terms of analyzing the choice of law are both sides agree that the laws differ here that there's a genuine conflict so the only question is wished which state is going to suffer a greater experiment by application of the other states law and yet you perform that analysis not by assessing which state has the better or worthier policy but who has demonstrated a stronger interest in their law and which states should action you're bringing or as compared to new whether you filed on time yeah i don't think that there's a distinction i know that there are some states who have tried to cabin the statute of limitations issues under the choice of law and now it's this but i don't believe california is among california does not differentiate between procedural and substantive laws in terms of analyzing whether the laws conflict and in determining which law should govern and so i think with with that established as a premise  it becomes quite clear analyzing the california supreme court's decision in can and are short rathole and castro that whether the plaintiff's presence in the  non california state is voluntary is a critical factor and just to return briefly we have a less sufficient facts to draw the plausible inference that samantha's presence in utah was involuntary if if additional facts come forth at some point we're not arguing that those facts could not be introduced as part of  renewed motion to dismiss but based on the allegations in the complaint and the admissions made by logan river in response to the evidence submitted in support of our opposition we note two things and if you read bernard and tyranny that matters it matters which of the two parties the plaintiff or the defendant reached in to the other party state and we have those advertising reaching out to the other party state is not rethink in your complaint the transacting business or the advertising or solicitation is not in the complaint  but there's also no law that we're aware of and logan river certainly not cited any this is you you not only have to plead a plausible allegation plausible allegations to support your cause of action but that you also have to plead  allegations related to a choice of law and houses and although if you're asking for the district court to consider facts beyond the four corners of your complaint i'm really looking at a motion to dismiss doesn't this have to become a motion for summary judgment well and we would welcome that but the fact is that it that the court in treated that way you see across the country you see courts are often reluctant to resolve choice of law issues at the motion to dismiss state because it requires structural development you have the th circuit's decision in cooper that says the district court has everything it needs to make this determination the st circus decision foresee says there's holes in the record we need further from actual development before we can make a determination of the choice of law but there's none of those cases suggest that  for purposes of a complaint that if you have not alleged every fact related to the choice of lab analysis that you're out of luck you are typically i get your point you're saying it's not your problem it could be an error on the part of the court exactly right or procedural area error we think the allegations in the complaint combined with the essential admissions of logan river about their advertising and solicitation of business in california is enough to rule in our favor just as a matter of law that that california law governs but in the alternative we would welcome the court reversing the district court for further factual development on the choice of law analysis and if there are no other pending questions or reserve the room the last minute of my time i  utah district court correctly answered this question when it applied the utah statute of limitations and dismissed this action accordingly if helen has argued in briefs and now before this court that despite the location of the alleged torts and the alleged tortfeasor the california statute of limitations should be applied based upon the allegation that mr smith in voluntarily in the state of utah that mr carson was a california residence and that logan river academy allegedly advertised in the state of california and solicited business within the state of california a st address why the appellants arguments do not sufficiently give rise to the california statute of limitations and then i will address the factors that make it clear that the district court ruled correctly in applying the utah law in dismissing this action regarding the allegation that mr finn was in voluntarily in utah the factual allegations of the complaint stablish that she was approximately fourteen or fifteen years old when she was enrolled at logan river academy the minor appellant herself might not have wanted to attend the school in order for her to have been rolled in the school factually for an entire year as she was someone on her behalf illegal parent or guardian and rolled her in the school and paid for her to be there logan river academy is not a public institution therefore tuitions was required if this hadn't happened someone had not been rolled her she would not have been able to attend the school she quite simply was not kidnapped as is claimed and taken to utah against the will of those responsible for her legal care and custody also this is an action for childhood sexual assaults this is not an action for kidnapping or involuntary transfer the appellant's complaint here contains causes of action for childhood sexual assault which are alleged to have occurred at logan river academy in utah negligent hiring of teachers and staff at logan river academy in utah the negligent supervision of teachers staff and students at a measure of the interests each respective state and determine which law should apply i think your honor they have pelleas position here is that utah has a greater interest in deciding this action based upon the fact that we're dealing with a utah corporation and its utah employees and that every single port alleged in the complaint the current within the state of utah the me let me let me interrupt st one quick  have spoken in terms of the interests of the state governing choice of law and that sounds like whether the code for new cares more about kids being abused then utah or vice versa and i don't think that is the best for choice of law i read it as i'm reading from the mccann decision because the former supreme court the process can actually be described as a problem domains of law making power in the ultra state context by determining the appropriate limitations on the reach of state policies as distinguished from the right of evaluating the wisdom of those policies emphasis is placed on the appropriate scope of conflicting state policies rather than on the quality of those phones these so i don't think it has anything to do with under california choice of law law with your faith the strength of the feeling of each state regarding how much when should punish this type of conduct but just a determination by the california supreme court of which state should have the law making power in this circumstance so you put it in terms policies i thought and your kind of not in your head you agree that the mccann formulation is what we're supposed to apply or do you disagree no i do agree i think i can have a lot of wonderful language  and the court in mccann had some some things to say that are also very on point for the issues we're dealing with here you just read a quote from the the case and and i would like to do the same here on page one hundred and one  the court in that quote says when the law of the other state limits or denies liability for the conduct engaged in by the defendant and its territory that state's interest is predominant so when we're talking about what state has a greater interest in having its laws applied to an action mechanics it clear that you talk about in this case because in utah the the statute limitations that is controlling is more limited than it is california and because based on the holding of macan a state has a greater interest in controlling torts that are alleged to have occurred within that state borders which is exactly what we're dealing with here but what do we what do we do with the fact if we can consider because the fact that there has been advertising on the academy in california that the advertising arguments it is a police position fail on several fronts the record declined to consider and you know i didn't specifically state i think that it could have it could have very likely considered it what the court held it had on here was that all of the torts that give rise to causes of action in this case are torts that occurred within the state of utah the solicitation of business there's no there's no allegation that that had anything to do with this particular case the tests that we i think were supposed to apply  determining the appropriate limitation or reach of the state's policies the district court in this case look at that analysis and all the court did the court examined the choice of law issue appropriately in terms of the law and it did way which states policies would be more impacted based upon which state laws were applied and it both district courts the central district in california and the utah district court felt that the state of utah had a greater interest in having its was applied to this after the district court here identify any interest on behalf of california in this case i gather then main issue here is that the plaintiffs the minor plaintiffs was a california resident at the time that the assaults occurred but on the issue of residency there aren't any cases that have been cited here by the appellant that residency alone gives rise to that state law in every case for residency and then discussed it was a residency and another factor such as where the tort occurred that gave rise to the law then you need to look at the extension statutes of limitation in california for this type of claim  sexual abuse of children we look at that state interest we do yes and that's addressed in the a pelleas brief the statute of limitations addressed by the district court i don't i believe it was not not thoroughly the district court did address what interest the state of california had in protecting its residents and ultimately in addressing this the court said that while the state does have an interest in protecting its residen statute of limitations including a borrowing provision making applicable sacha limitations of another state so that statement seems to me to suggest that there is a difference in a conflict of law analysis when you're dealing with statute of limitations as opposed to substantive law and a state's interest in them plying its own law is exceedingly high when it comes down to the limitations do you agree with that number one and gee you know of any california case law that supports that i creed that state has a high interest in the flying its own laws which i think supports the application of the utah law here utah has an extremely high interest in having its statute of limitations applied to alleged assaults that occurred in utah  as for the same time that you have the same interest and limitation if you hope for california i believe california would have an extremely high interest and having it statute of limitations said it claims that occur in california and the provisions of us have up to its present to its resident well it's its residence it doesn't have unlimited reach to protect its residents from everything and there is not a single case that supports that proposition when a resident leave the state the laws of its home state don't protect it from everything and in fact statutes of limitations are not designed to protect a resident they are designed to prevent the litigation of stale claims what's designed to protect residents are the laws of those states but time that he was working in oklahoma and was and and at that time he was exposed with theft this years later he moved to california and then several years after that he was diagnosed with leukemia doma and attempted to sue so the can is a great example of a case where it wasn't it wasn't residency that made the turning point here for the court in the can court look at where did the tort arise that gave rise to the litigation and that will be in there also with consideration and mccann that you have a plan to parents moving around and that we're not going to let him bring actions and then the state that he happens to land in particularly one was a very long statute of limitation i would agree with that i think statutes of limitations with looking at where did this port arise that gave rise to the litigation residency was not a sufficient basis by itself to have the laws of of that state apply i see that my time is over and if there are no further questions i would ask the court to affirm the ruling of the district court  i would just make two quick points in rebuttal st on the question of voluntariness most of what we heard was extra record evidence that's not before the court that wasn't included in the complaint that wasn't included in any of the submissions specifically about guardianship about the circumstances under which samantha could have ended up at logan river academy and that and that only illustrates the problem with making it a fact appendage determination of voluntary and has at the twelve p sixty eight dollars which the nd point i would make has to do with the can and bernhardt they can yes has that language but the facts are critically different and california the california supreme court has made clear that it's a totality of the circumstances analysis and in that case you have an oklahoma resident who lives in oklahoma who grew up in oklahoma then who suffers the toward in oklahoma and then moves which is critically different than the case here and the last thing i would say is about bernhard which is very similar and a that a tavern owner advertises its business in california leaving a california resident to voluntarily leave and drink in nevada where and that's where that the tortious conduct occurred and