was not clearly applicable to procedural issues traditionally procedural issues like that should a limitation under the foundational case of reivers per cell actually would argue that right versus purcell did make this clear but when these we don't even look to the other states interest because of all congress needs these cases in addition the sparrows case says similarly the result would be the same under traditional governmental interest analysis as opposed to do  as been described by a court that setting a presumption very rare exception must apply in order for california courts to apply for an statute of limitations again this presumption fails from the  different theoretical basis for that presumption it was more california when the situation is reversed and the point is from the california and california provides a longer sta by the failure of the court to apply that law because the grouping of the contacts in the center of the case is actually in that when you're in a product liability suit the stream of commerce theory someone imported from  and when you're looking at the nd step he do still have to consult the law and the policy behind it to see where they have an interest as we started to the court the kelly vs goodyear case out of connecticut additional federal district court of connecticut as they did connecticut  legitimate and strong interest in protecting its citizens from defective products sending them to the states as well as those manufactured here in alaska the statute of limitations that we rely on which particular  depends on what you define as the interests of this game i mean the interest of the state is confined to the narrow interests underlying the statute of interest underlying its own statute of limitations you might get one answer but if you define connecticut's interest as more broadly encompassing and the interest against having  the manufacturer send defective products into connecticut days and holding them accountable you might come up with a different answer which judge wo didn't quote from it discusses this cause the injury in that state when the plaintiff is residence is the same as the state of injury which is also deemed to be where the conduct or wrong occurred in products liability cases th connecticut has the stronger interest and i would note also for the court that california follows this same logic when it is a california plaintiff involved and the product was shipped in the california this is where the court doesn't sullivan cases come in so what differently than it does any other government interest announces case and when you get to that rd step this is where this is where the the rubber meets the road on the one hand you have connecticut having a strong interest with a longer statute in protecting its point and you have california with a legitimate interest because you have a california defendant and in those cases what tips the balance is where the conduct wrong or injury occurred when that is the same as the point of re that's a good point your honor if the case is do you discuss the plaintiff's residence at the time that the injury occurred and at the time our plaintiffs were california were connecticut residents this is important and it's a good distance from greg brought it up because in the at that mccann was an after acquired residence case and we can then discount the california residents of the plaintiff because the point of been moved to california and so many years later in this case is the exact opposite the after and when you look at the last event cases which the district court in this case judge actually endorsed this ruling grace versus apple when you're looking at manufacturing cases the last event supplants the you know well the conduct happened in california where the product was manufactured explicitly note in california law the conduct is deemed to have her with the injury occurs where the where the the manufacturer sent the product and in this case the la actually quite agree just because three months before our point of saxony an injury into would have had a nd generation product cleared by the f d a they failed to warn the doctors and the hospitals using this device throughout the country including in connecticut had they given that warning had they recalled the device in october as they should have this injury never would have occurred on the other hand gene rustico never knew that a california manufacturer's product was being used in her surgery she didn't reach california she didn't direct any actions of california she had no connection to california california came about as the form is a form of convenience for its who would have through tolling agreement which also go out of town is a factor favoring forms a form of convenience for this action i am not sure your honour's where i am on time has the shorting i'm on my electrical system here is kind of throw me off i could continue if the court would like but i don't wan and i am going to discuss today the interpretation of the torn agreement now even if the two years statue limitations in a california law applies in this case the action was timely file based on the tolling agreement and subsequent extensions of the agreement and there are three points i want to discuss in support of the town's position st the trial court error in finding that the claims were already time barred when  tolling period commenced the trial court found the claims were barred because california has two years statute of limitations applied in a court of plighted that stachel occasions retroactively without any basis and in the of limitations from the defense there was no choice of law analysis by any court and most importantly up to the day when the tolling period began plaintiffs could have time we filed correct that at the time you signed it telling the green men the statute of limitations had already passed isn't the telly agreement entirely illus limitations and choice of law and many of these cases do not present simple questions including this case is not present a simple question a choice of law it's not the hypothetical easy case that it seemed that the court created it the easy case being that you have a california resident injured by another california resident in an accident that occurred in california now in that hypothetical easy case there's no argument that only california california intil she opted into the agreement which was a later date in the lawyers signing the agreement now this is the only reasonable interpretation of the tone of human here the parties exchange here we have a contract that does not specify the timing or order of the performances and as set out in restatement of contracts the legal presumption is that if the performance of of promise agreement can be performed simultaneously then they shall be performed simultaneously so in other words is rights to go is not obligated to file in california intil intuitive was simultaneously when she opted in i was rescued became obligated to file in california now if you combine the st two points the result is that the rest go is free to file or plane in connecticut the day fairly unspecified courts so that the seedings clause that intuitive relies on does not help them here because the before the tolling period began there was no basis for finding that ms rest goes claims decision on a conflict of laws decision of course the court could express its disapproval and its disagreement if any with the state court but doesn't this really taking us into territory court eight point five four eight which is your honour's no vote would allow this court in and then a few other select boards if they wish to ask the california supreme court to rule on a particular  issue in this diversity case of course the rules the framework of the conflict of laws analysis is drawn from in this instance in the form states from california and there is a mechanism that is in use that often to can be used in an appropriate case to ask the california supreme court to provide legal guidance where there is not that's what it looks like they're asking for now really the phrase that council use was  case actually those cases seem to have held up quite well there's been no criticism or reservation about them by the california supreme court as to the california court of appeal decision a national in chemical  or redo cases that have been around for a long time and finally on this point what do the plaintiffs say the law should be changed to if if actually in chemical and  changed with respect i think again there's been a migration of their position apparently the plaintiff recognizes that the district court ruled on conflict in an entirely appropriate way say compelled to rely upon and applied them in accordance with their plain terms that doesn't i respectfully submit seem like error of a kind of any kind of more much less an error or that ought to be corrected with the extreme measures of overruling cases that have been on the books for a long time and finally ended actually this is a bridge to the next section  explicitly they argued this to judge though in the district court that this is a connecticut case has no connection with with california not it's everything about it is connecticut and  allegations in connection with that part of their complaint which is we know a few additional admission do not disagree with that thank you january january two thousand and twelve i believe i don't i don't disagree with that if i may please commend the to the court's attention paragraph intuitive actions describe above illustrating conscious disregard of the safety of others next paragraph intuitive has a substantial business presence in california next paragraph intuitive adequately balance the stadium for a competing state interest here are the short answer is that following a stablish case law judge recognized that there was no conflict an actual would come out any differently it still has the california interests are the numerated in the complaint and she called him out quite specifically so if someone had the notion that it would be a good idea to the the the california statute of limitations had passed by that time it seems to be the argument here that a statute of limitations can only actually run out when somebody tolling agreement would have told of the running of the statute of limitations whenever she came on board the last concept that your own or other articulated which she got no benefit from this benefit from this it  didn't confer a benefit on anyone who is going to complain hundreds or thousands of people did this and and regular the record fairly reflects that a great many cases were settled says the statute of limitations expired under california law without any intercession from intuitive or anyone else so then she signed the tolling agreement and and she  to file in certain places under certain circumstances she was free of her lawyers and that's fine as i said oh my gosh did california there's a two years statute and that's going to apply but our claim is still and they're almost a full year to go ahead and file in connecticut i don't agree that that would actually change the outcome of things because california law under a conflict analysis of any kind would is still presen but they would have had ample time to go ahead and litigate this the notion that some out there were told all my gosh you know you've got this problem you've got to file in california if it were a problem is entirely solvable under the then yes but the implication of that is that then that in effect the connecticut statute of limitations ran out the same time that the california  of limitations ran out they're arguing the opposite they're arguing that connecticut would have been their safeguard their salvation i have a different view of things but if they were right if they were right the talent connecticut would have saved them if your point except that the decades since they were decided the california supreme court has never indorsed the holdings that it would have relies on has never stated that when it comes to stash limitations where there is a california defendant the shorter california statute of limitations always applies that's the world ashleigh and that's the rule of nelson it's never been upheld stated applied or discussed by the california supreme court and not in the dark not since they that the california supreme court has only said that when it comes to statue imitations and choice of law we apply the governmental interest analysis the way we do on any regal issue there's no special gloss