this court applies under control in washington state choice of lodgers prudence washington has a most significant relationship to mr and l's consumer protection claim against washington based debt collector s s b and its illinois bas be different answers there for different defendants you know that there could be different answers in fact the restatement allows a different choice of law for different issues and so with a flexible approach i do think way they do now under texas law your client would have a remedy and under washington law she would not wouldn't there be an overwhelmingly good argument for applying texas law in that case i would argue that if there was no remedy under washington right but that resident of texas received letters which she believes violate texas law sent sent to her in texas directed to her in texas and where her harm occurred in texas and let's assume i get as i said the texas law provided her with a remedy you would be here arguing that or that washington long which washington have in affording protection to your client she lives in texas she does she has no right washington ties they have consumer protection laws which i assume and they the cases seem to suggest were passed to protect the residents when you look at the interests of the varying states what's washington's interest in protecting your client washington's interest in protecting  actually clearly addressed in the thornell case itself by our state supreme court and that is because there's a there don't there's a court to say that it was at the start you could apply extra territorially it didn't talk about choice of law it had a very explicit reservation of the choice of lawyer issue i agree with that your honor however the rationale as to how the court found that mr nel and non washington resident had a claim under the consumer protection act goes directly to washington's interests and the dual purpose of the consumer protection act and there are two purposes one is to protect the public and importantly in order to reach the decision they did in thornhill they found that is not just the public that's not just washington residen to be sure but when we're looking at the interests of the states certainly washington has a greater interest in protecting its residents than it does protecting residents of other states does it not it does but there's a second purpose to the consumer protection act and that is to foster honest and fair competition and that is that the element that the thornell court spent a great deal of time on with respect to state farm what's the interest to washington with respect to state for  say again that foreign oil answer that which is washington has an interest in deterring out of state principles from coming into washington and hiring agents that violate washington law and that is one of the key think that was the only question a washington supreme court answered it said this statute may apply extra territorially it didn't go through the interests of your client in this case or the or the usfsa to punish these particular defendants it said there's on its face but as a staff member of statutory interpretation the statute could apply extra territorially now we've answered your question in federal court you go deal with the rest of the case it didn't it didn't balance interests of these particular parties did it no your honor but it did a very clearly identify washington's interest in deterring misconduct by its own corporate citizens against not  defendant i understand that state farm isn't in texas but it's also not in washington so washington the connection of washington just a farm is a lot weaker even if there is some relations or from there having hired an agent and and i would think also that the interest analysis is different because washington as you say has an interest in its corporate citizens the hating but state farm isn't its corporate citizen which is pretty close in as to the service bureau but not state and i think maybe this question highlights the problem of the court having result of these trial so what we're looking for a judgment after what i what contested issues were there here i think the issues are quite straightforward you allege that a company in washington sent letters which give rise to liability to your client in texas what what other facts would there be relevant to the choice of on houses i think the facts that we would want to develop go directly to your honor's questions which is what is the relationship between state farm and s s b is there a contract that actually obligated them both to follow washington state law where there indemnity provisions pointing one way or another did state farm ever come and meet with s s b in washington to help develop and design the collection letters we don't know any of that because it was contacts are in texas and the quality of the contacts are in texas whether one applies one forty five or one forty eight and i think i think frankly between the sides that's a it's a in sooner relevant  dispute and so if the great weight of the contacts are in texas does it really matter what other facts you might there's discover here let's assume that they are an agent nay plotted together somewhere to send these letters worst possible set of facts that damage occurs in texas the letters are occurred in texas your client claims that all the things bad things that happened to her happened in texas why isn't that enough to choose texas because for over fifty years washington has rejected lex loci as the i'm not just about what i'm talking about the restatement analysis which looks at the at the number and quality of the contacts and so to me that's what the district court did it didn't say and i'm trying to have a hard time figuring out why the nature and quality of the contacts isn't predominately in texas because the nature and  contacts are to be reviewed in light of sections six's general principles which have to do with the interests of the various states the policies underlined the laws that each state might want to apply the goals and purposes of those statues that's why you reach a ruling in spider staging right where the washington court applied washington law rather than kansas law even though the plaintiff was from kansas here and had been scaffolding there the plaintiff sets up the scaffolding there the plaintiff is killed there the injury in the in the location the residence of the plaintiff and the receipt of the of the problem right the product all happened in kansas and yet when our state supreme court said quite clearly and setting out a two stage analysis is the facts look like they're evenly balanced right so you have the misconduct occurring in washington the design the manufacture the sale of a defective  product but you have the injury in the residence of the plaintiff in kansas what could be more on point with this case and in spite of staging and i guess your argument depends on sort of backing out the underlying facts occurred and all that is not pertinent to this trial those factors completely irrelevant to whether or not mr nel has a consumer protection claim under either texas or washington well what do one forty five and one forty eight both talk about where paid in taxes that's correct because she didn't in fact pay had she in fact paid do we also consider what she would have paid had she if she had if she had succumbed to the years he asserted fraud she would have with the spider cases in that case we have a voluntary transaction between a buyer in kansas and a washington manufacture and so the kansas person voluntary you know does business with somebody in washington is that different is because that's really you know i know it's a product liability case but it arises out of a contract isn't that somewhat different from the argument here the violation of a statutory right to the extent that it is i actually think it cuts in our favor because miss thorne ill initiated no contact with s s b or state farm instead she was just in texas and suddenly gets a letter claiming that she owes an amount that if she ever been liquidate i think it might cut the other way because someone in kansas dealing with washington a washington manufacturer might well feel like it was going to give the benefit of having dealt with somebody in another state because of this that state's law might be somewhat more favorable here your client has no expectation as as the transaction begins there's some how she's dealing with a washington based operation i would add though washington does look at the expectations of the parties and the notion that either state either s s p or its principal state farm did not expect to have washington law applied to its conduct when they were engaged in debt collection activity emanating from market in texas and that's seems to be of some interest to texas with their approach of state farm i e to have state farm selling insurance taxes but none with regard to the scieno service bureau t two points on that number one there has been no articulated interest of texas in applying its own law into private as they are now a claim if you look closely at the district court's order frankly she never did the interest analysis with regard to texas so there is no interest in the record no finding as to why texas wanted to deprive miss thorne l of a claim for better business purposes or whatever and when you look at the washington state jurisprudence on on choice of law you'll see again and again and again that our state courts find that that foreign states have no legitimate interest in depriving their own residents of a claim under washington law that is governing controlling law in our state and that's why the result came out the way it did in spider staging a minute ok thank you very much for anything  good morning in may it please the court i represent state farm but i am actually appearing here on behalf of both of the police and the reason for that is very simple the district court dismissed the case as to both concluding that section whether you look at one forty five or whether you look at one forty eight washington law would apply in either case and there's no been no appeal here on the ground that the two defendants should have been treated differently and i think that's important even if there even if the other side hasn't claimed that why can't we look at that issue well let's look let's look at that the other side says both both defendants should be subjected to washington could we conclude that one shouldn't you could absolutely you could but the that's not the gist of their argument and let me explain why the allegations in this case the question is really isn't whether it's the gist of their argument question is whether it's appropriate  law i quite agree and i think you could conclude and certainly with respect to a corporation located in washington the state's interests may be greater strain applying its own law to it than to a corporation located in illinois i think that's quite right although recall that under both one forty five and one forty eight we don't look at an a one at analyzing and comparing the two state interests until the unless the contacts are evenly balanced and that's why first of all that the three statements are restatements and they're not the law of washington as such you have a law in washington and the law in washington is very clear that we only look at an actual analysis of what is the interest of this state and what is the interest  that say if the contacts are evenly balanced don't want a context in the context of the interests you of course you do enter into but in that instance i want to direct the court to future select washington supreme court case that adopted section one forty eight for common law fraud claims and it explained that in that case you had plaintiffs who were washington residents and you had a defendant who is from a different state and the washington supreme court said that in that state washington here texas has a more compelling interest in protecting its investors from fraud and misrepresentation than they are new york what your what what are the contacts in texas that make a difference here opposing counsel says that the contacts to texas aren't relevant because that doesn't go to the contumely consumer protection claim so let's talk about exactly what for that claim we have a texas pla we have a texas injury we have letters that were intentionally directed into texas those letters were allegedly unfair and deceptive because of the effect that they were designed to have when the plaintiff opened them in texas two says the letters were written the way they were in order to deceive plaintiff into believing so those that was the judge that is the nature of what is alleged about these letters to be unfair and deceptive and it was directed  a countervailing equal consideration and as to the contests here at least equal actually underway so first of all i just want to take a step back and say i completely agree that the context with respect to my client state farm are thin in the extreme with respect to washington so i just want to be clear about that but because i'm speaking here on behalf of the s s b as well i would like to make a couple of points about that and one is that with respect to s s p if you look at one forty eight it says that the residents of the plaintiffs is more important and that's because in a claim involving misrepresentation what we care about is the effect it was having right when we care about is that a fact and that effect necessarily in this case happened in texas regulating the behavior of its corporate citizens a strong concern and i understand that the washing supreme court opinion this case can decide the choice of law question but it did to stop it did evidence in deciding what it did decide that the policy of this statute was concerned with regulating washington corporate citizens they don't and i completely agree that and that is an interest that washington has but what the choice of line elsa's looks is which is the state with the most significant relationships what's right what's what's texas's interest in regulating this transaction or not really or not regulating it i understand what texas is interest is with respect to its own residents what could you spider stagings a little different but it we look at that case in the supreme court washington says well look  the purpose of the wrongful death statute is to protect kansas residents and so applying their statute of limitations in this case won't protect kansas residents why ors if you think of that so i'm trying to figure out what the program what the purpose of the absence of regulation of this is in texas because that would be the spider in our spider would say well what's texas is interested in having the law the way it is well that texas has an interest in making sure that companies find texas to be a good place to do business so for example if if state stay firm sells insurance in texas does does this particular sold this particular policy in texas is all about texas right but with respect to any company states texas has an interest in making sure texas is a good it has texas may have an interest in making its state business friendly absolutely and in fact supreme court wrote in the coca cola case that laws about consumer protection unfair business practices quote necessarily reflect fundamental policy choices that the people of one jurisdiction should not impose on the people of another the state of texas has made a policy judgment that it prefers not to extend a consumer protection act to this group if you counted on purchasers correct because it does have a consumer protection act for purchase it does and it's for that reason that this particular conduct  not qualify under the consumer protection act claim now i think i know there was a dialogue in the district court and i feel similarly it seems very strange that texas would say oh oh fine you know write write letters to people  in texas representing that they owe you money when they don't just because you don't have you don't have any previous relationship with them it's just fine there's no texas law that seems well i don't that there is no law i mean i never said to that there is no texas law but i don't i don't know that i mean the other difficulty here and i think this is one of the reasons why we don't look at this question of balancing of state interests unless the contacts are evenly balanced is because i'm not texas i don't speak for texas the district court not only applied texas law correct but then they're after dismiss the case correct because they found no claim under texas law does that mean there's no common law law from the beginning of this case they've said texas law has nothing to do with this case from the beginning of the case the only claim was one under the c p a the consumer protection act of washington correct and presumably if if plaintiffs wanted to sue under complaint to assert they couldn't after that and they declined to amend the complaint after i just want to make sure what the record was on that that is what they're and so there's no other claim in this case could there be i don't know but they haven't asserted one if we find the contacts are evenly balanced and move on to consider the interests of each state opposing counsel said that the district court did not consider texas interests below because it didn't move on to that step should we and for the district court to do that i don't think it's necessary i think the court has enough argument before it today on that point and and again all you need to do is start with the future select a decision itself the washington supreme court decision that compares the relative interested acknowledges both have an interest right that clearly a state has an interest in regulating corporations who do things within its boundaries and clearly a different state might have an interest in regulating what happens to that doesn't matter for example whether seattle service bureau has ever i mean actually itself done business and in texas presumably it hasn't but we don't know that it does it doesn't matter and i will tell you why from this podium earlier this morning a list of facts that the plaintiffs would like to develop and should think believe they should have been allowed to develop before this motion was decided none of that was briefed in the district court none of that was brief and i know i mean i but i'm not really asking directly about the discovery of what i'm asking is doesn't matter that if we knew that seattle service bureau  never marketed its services in texas and had no intention of doing so which i suspect are the facts would that matter for the choice of low cost it wouldn't because the choice of law question measures the relationship which state has the most ridiculously mechanical to me because in order to know what interest matter you have to know what context matter you have to know what interests matter so i don't see the division as particularly useful  and so assuming that there is some interaction between the two chain stages here doesn't matter with regard to washington's asserted interest in controlling the behavior of a so called person it's with respect to allowing the free market to operate with regard to these concerts rance actions that that whether this particular defendant has any connection to them in texas market which i suspect it doesn't but we know one very clear way that this defendant and i'm referring to state s s b has a connection to the texas market and that is in respect to this plaintiff and this cause of action and this but that's not a market thing in other words if that's true i mean in the sense that so therefore it would seem that the connection between de farm and this agent i mean in texas no interest in fostering that relationship well actually if underlying transaction that gave rise to this dispute the sale of insurance and the automobile accident tax code and all taxes and here's why i think that's important as the s b is alleged to be involved here soley as the agent of state farm s s b didn't choose on its own to do business in texas it's doing what it's alligator the plaintiffs allegation is that s s p is involved here solely as as the agent of state farm and so as the different factors and figure out which state has the great weight of contacts with this particular claim the links to washington have to be colored by that agency context right so i think and critical actor here there's no allegation i don't think in this case because we're dealing with a complaint that state farm told them the form of the letters to say that's correct they did they just they just assigned a claim they just assigned to subrogated caldwell what the allegation is that state farm and s s which the allegation which we take as true for purposes of this motion is that state farm and says b have an agency will understand you said that but the problem is there's no real allegation that state farm that's absolutely right gaijin other than having an agency relationship that is there is rather seeking to impose liability on state farm is responding at superior matter not because they were acting in concert or something i think that's exactly right there's no well you know there's nobody called my point is the critical actor in this case is this is me on the on the defense side is it not i actually don't completely agree with that because the i know you don't agree with it but i'm to tell me why because the because the allegation here the reason we're here is that the plaintiff says she got this letter and i want like to direct the court no no no no no before you leave that what did what what did state farm do other than make yes and i don't deny it and has an end interest in that but the reason i referring to it is that the overall question for the court is to look at which state has the most significant relationship not any interests not some interest saying and that texas has an if you look at the plaintiffs internet contact the contact with the plaintiff you have to do it in the guise of the context that to me that texas is not protecting the plaintiff so therefore the fact that it's an interest and not i mean when when the restatement says it's where the plaintiff lives that's more important you know i think the subtle assumption is because they have an interest in protecting the plaintiffs but there's no interest in not protecting the plaintiff the argument the interest and asserted by texas is an interest is not an interest and not protecting the plaintiff is some interest and doesn't have to relate to the plaintiff is texas to think that the seattle service bureau has anything to do with any market in texas you're right you're right except that they sent this letter to the plaintiff in texas they sent this letter to the plaintiff at a place where she did not have a claim this actually goes a little bit to  way the choice of law rules work in washington does not require every court to engage in a broad policy comparison between two states what the and i although i agree that we look at the context through the lens of interests the court not required to sit here without any representation from either the state of texas or the state of washington before you to say which state has a more sensible policy that's not the rule the rule is we look at the contacts which state has the most significant relationship with the claim and based on that analysis whether you look at one forty five or one forty eight the answer for both defendants is texas ok thank you very much we will or do you look where the conduct occurred i think it's important to remember and this was recently reiterated in order to conduct occur in this case the conduct here occurred in washington sort of a strange thing because the conduct is sending a letter so that you know i kind of think of you know if i'm standing on the border of texas and oklahoma and i punch somebody in oklahoma my punch began in texas but it ended in oklahoma isn't the conduct here not simply limited to washington i believe a conduct is designing drafting and sending letters that don't comply with washington la create a relationship right right and that my point is that my point is that the it doesn't matter from where the letters were mailed does it only in that that this is s s b s headquarters and so it doesn't matter i actually was mostly a form non convenient case that did a little side issue on choice of law future select which was decided in two thousand and fourteen and woodward versus taylor which was decided in two thousand and sixteen site in use the two step tests adopted in southwell there is no requirement in southwell or spider staging that there that the context be evenly balanced and the reason for that here's the here's what the state supreme court said in one thousand sixty nine when it first looked at ado restatement certainly an indication of context contacts is meaningless without consideration of the interests and public policies of potentially concerned states and regard as to the manner and extent of such policies as they relate to the transaction in issue the interest analysis is equally of importance as the contact analysis under washington state choice of law might not be true in california might not be in texas but we're in we're here in washington and those are the rules that apply and so it's unfortunate that miers picked up that language and then some intermediate appellate courts picked it up but if you go back to spider staging the only presence of the phrase evenly balanced is actually in footnote i think it's five years but here's the here's my difficulty and this is x is a diversity case yes we have a direct statement from the supreme court of washington and you're saying i think with some justification if you read it's later cases we're not so sure it still believes that although it didn't it doesn't ever disavow it and so what are we supposed to do in a case like that your honor i believe we should follow what the analysis was in spider staging and originally because that was the first real analysis or setting forth of the two step analysis the language that's not the seventy six case it is and we have a nine hundred ninety washington supreme court decision so you're telling us that the language in the one nine hundred seventy six it's i agree that miers says that it wasn't relevant to its analysis at all in fact miers i think had found that there was a false conflict please look at the more recent analyses because i would hate to have the evenly balanced