FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 10, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1665 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-200 73 CV-UUB GRUPO TELEVISA, S.A. , TELEV ISA, S.A. DE C.V., TELEV ISO TALENTO , S.A. DE C.V., Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us TELEMUNDO COMM UNICATIONS GROUP, INC. , TE LE MUN DO TE LE VI SIO N S TU DI OS , L LC , D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the So uth er

n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 0, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , F A Y and SI L E R , * C ir cu it Judg es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ * Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., Unit ed S tates C ircuit J udg e for the S ix th Circuit, sitt ing by desig nation.2

FA Y, Circuit Judge: T his appe al c ha lle nge s ade ci sio n to appl y Me xic anlawin a sui t a lle gin g to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce wi th a co nt ract forth e se rv ic es of aMex ic an so ap op era s ta r. The a ppellants (collectively“ Te levisa”) ar e a tr io of Mexican corporations that produce radio and televisio n program s for Spanish-speaking audi ences in Mexico an d a br oa d. T he y

li ce nse an A m er ic anbr oa dc as te r, U niv isi on, to carr y the ir

“ telenovelas” or soap opera program s in the United States. The appellees (c oll ec tiv el y

“ T el em undo ”) are r iva l S panis h- langua ge te le vis ionpr oduc er s and broadcasters that are headquartered in Florida. Af ter an a ctor w ho was under ex cl usi ve c ontra ct

to T el ev isa

a cc ep te d ar ole in a T el em undo soa p op er a, T el ev isa sue d it s A m er ic anr iva l i n f ed er al dis tr ic t c ourt i n M iam i, c la im ing tor tio us in te rfer en ce u nd er Fl or id a la w. T el em undo m ove d to dis m iss the c la im pur suant t o R

ule 12( b) (6 ), arg uin g that M ex ic anlaw , w hic h do es not r ec ogni ze ac au se of

a ct ionf or tor tio us interfer ence, governed the disp ute. T elevisa urged the court to applyFlorida law sin ce the a ct s le ad ing to the a lle ge dly of fe nsi ve c ondu ct

oc curr ed in Fl or ida . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d T el em undo ’ s m oti on t o di sm iss and o rd er ed the m oti on co nve rt ed to a m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he c ourt f

oll ow ed the c hoi ce of lawr ule s of the f or um state , w hic h di ct at e that the c ourt a ppl y the lawof

the state3

w iththe “ m ost

sig nif ic an t r el at ion shi p” to the oc curr en ce and the part ie s. A lth oughthe c ourt de cl ine d to m ak e a fi ndi ng a s to w he re the c ondu ct c au sin g th e injury occurre d, it found that oth er c ontacts favored the application of Mexican law , w hic h w oul d bar the c la im . A cc or din gly , the c ourt aw ar de d T el em undo sum m ar y j udgm en t, and T el ev isa

f ile d an im m ed ia te appe al , c ha lle ngi ng the co ur t’s “ m os t s ig ni fic an t re la ti on sh ip ” cal cu lu s. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s sum m ar y j udgm en t de ci sio n and r em an d th e ca se f or trial under Florida’ s law of tortious interfer ence. I. BACK GROUND Grupo Tele vi saS.A., Telev is a S.A., andTele vi saTale nt o S .A. de C.V. (collectively , “ Te levisa”), are three c losely aff iliated Mexican corporations which pr oduc e Sp an ish -l an gua ge te le vis ionand r ad io p ro gr am s f or br oa dc as t bo th i n Me xic o and a

br oa d. T el ev isa

a lso pr oduc es S panis h langua ge pe ri odi ca ls and g r o o ms man y o f

th e p e r f o rme r s w h o ap p e ar

i n i t s p r o du c t i o n s f

o r s t ar d o m, obt ai nin g th e ri ght s to use the ir im ag es and v oic es f

or pr om oti ona l purp ose s. T el ev isa r an ks a s th e larg es t pr oduc er of S panis h- langua ge m ed iain Ce ntr al and L at in A m er ic a, and i t e xpor ts m any te le vis ionpr ogr am s to the U nit ed S ta te s. The United States repre sents an im portant m arket for

“ telenovelas,” short se ri al iz ed te le vis iondr am as that are sim ila r to A m er ic ansoa

p op er as . U nli ke4

A m er ic ansoa

p op er as , w hic h a ttr ac t daytim e au die nc es , te le nove la s a ir dur ing pr im e- tim e vie w ing hours . T el ev isa m ai nta ins it s in te rn at ion al sa le s of fi ce in Fl or ida , but

it doe s no t br oa dc as t i ts t el en ove la s to the state s di re ct ly . I nst ea d, it lic en se s U niv isi on C om

m uni catio ns G ro up, I nc . , alarg e Sp an ish -l an gua ge br oa dc as tin g c or

por at ion , to carr

y it s te le vis ionpr ogr am

m ing in the U . S. on i ts ne tw orks, U niv isi on and T el ef utura . T oge the r, the se tw o ne tw orks c om m an d 80 % of the Spanish-language televisio n m arket in the U .S . T elevisa owns an unc onso lid at ed

e qui ty int er es t i n U niv isi on. U niv isi on’ s c hie f ri va l f

or the a tte nti on o f Sp an ishte le vis ionaudi en ce s in the U. S. is the Te lem

undo Ne twork, which is owned and operated by a subsidi ary of the T el em

undo Co m

m uni catio ns G ro up, L L C, w hic h is it se lf asub sid iary

of NBC Universal, Inc. Te lem undo Com

m unication s Gr oup, Inc. produces te le nove la s th ro ugh T el em undo T el ev isi on S tud ios , L L C. Bo th T el em undo Com m unication s Gr oup, Inc. and Te lem undo Te levision Studios, LL C ar e he ad quart er ed

in H ia le ah , F lor ida , w hic h is w he re T el ev isa a lle ge s th at

T el em undo co m m itt ed tor tio us i nte rf

er en ce w ithone of

it s c ontra ct s. The c ontract involv ed a Mexican actor nam ed Juan Mauricio Islas Ilesca s (“ Is la s” ). O n January

20, 200 0, I sla s si gne d an “ O ff er ing L ette r” to T el ev isa . T he L ette r state d th at

I sla s pr opos ed

to of fe r his se rv ic es f

or “ ar tis tic int er

pr et at ion ” in5

certa in produ ctions,“ personal presentations ” for pr om otion al purposes, “ voice interpretations in respect to any production ” and “ use of im age” to T elevisa on an exclusive basis for seven y ears. Islas proposed th at all the af orem entioned activities would be gov erned by a civil agree m ent and according to the Federal Co py ri ght s L awof

Me xic o. T el ev isa

a cc ep te d th e of

fe r on J anuary

26, 200 0, ex ec uti ng a

“ Fr am ew ork A gr ee m en t f or Re nde ri ng o f Se rv ic es on an E xc lus ive Basis” w ith Islas. T elevisa had been groom ing Islas as an actor since 1990 and had se nt hi m to it s ac ti ng sch oo l an d c as t h im in a nu m be r of tel en ov el as . The 2000 Fram ew ork Agree m ent contained a choice of lawprovisio n which state d th at

Me xic anF ed er al Co py

ri ght s L aww oul d go ve rnthe a gr ee m en t. I t a lso co nta ine d ape na lty

pr ovi sio n th at

state d I sla s w oul d ow e T el ev isa P $840 , 000 in Me xic anpe sos in the e ve nt tha t he br ea ch ed the te rm s of

the a gr ee m en t, and a se parate pe na lty

of P $5, 880, 000 in M ex ic anpe sos sho uld he br ea chhis ex cl usi ve ne ss o bli ga tio ns unde r the a gr ee m en t. Additionally , I slas pledged th at he w ouldnot render his services to any third party in Me xic o or

abr oa d f or a t l ea st s ix m onths f

oll ow ing te rm inatio n of

the ag re em en t, sho uld

T el ev isa te rm inate the a gr ee m en t e ar ly f or br ea ch . T he A gr ee m en t a lso c ont ai ne d af ir st r igh t of

r ef usa l pr ovi sio n th at

gave T el ev isa

the ri ght to m at chany

thi rd party of fe r that I sla s m igh t r ec ei ve w ith in s ix m onths o f6

the te rm inatio n of

the A gr ee m en t. I n e xc hange f or I sla s’ se rv ic es , T el ev isa pr om is edto pa y

hi m a m on th ly sala ry , sep arat e p aym en ts foreach tel en ov el a, a lum p sum tow ar ds the pur ch as e of

r ea l pr ope rty

and y earl y

bonuse s. T el ev isa

and Is la s m odi fi ed

the c ontra ct

on Apr il 1, 200 1, on Apr il 15, 200 1, and o nc e m or e on De cem ber 1, 2002 , incr easing Islas’ com pensation and the penalties for breac h. In the int er im , T el ev isa

and I sla s a lso e xe cu te d f our se parate a ct or s un iona gr ee m en ts fo r sp eci fic tel en ov el a p ro jects . On N ovem

ber 7, 2003 , Mr . I slas, who was still und er c ontract to Tele visa, sig ne d an e xc lus ive pr oduc tio n a gr ee m en t w ithT el em undo a t i ts o ff

ic es in Hiale ah, F lorida. T he Agre em ent stated that Telem undo engaged Islas to perform ac tin g se rv ic es in pr ogr am s pr oduc ed by T el em undo or thi rd part ie s f or use on T el em undo ’ s ne tw ork. T he A gr ee m en t a lso c ont ai ne d an e xc lus ivi ty pr ovi sio n in
w hic h I sla s pl ed ge d th at

he “ w oul d no t c om

m en ce or part ic ipate in any ne got ia tio ns f

or his se rv ic es w ith , or

r en de r se rv ic es f

or any thi rd part ie s w ith out Te lem undo ’ s prior wr itten consent” du ring the term of the agree m ent. E m ergency Mot ionf or T em por ar y Re str ai nin g O rd er

and P re lim inary

I nj unc tio n, January

20 & 2 2, 200 4, P la int if

fs ’ E xhi bit

3, a t 2, § 3. T he A gr ee m en t w as to be bin din g un til itwas re pl aced by a lon g fo rm ag reem en t. Id

. a t 9, § 21 .7

On N ovem

ber 11, 2003, Mr. Islas and Te lem undo signed a Condi tional D ep osi t A gr ee m en t w iththe Banc o N ac ion al de Mé xic o, S . A . , appoi nti ng the bank as the de posi tor

y f or a$1, 000, 000. 00 p ay

m en t f ro m T el em undo to Is la s. T he D ep osi t A gr ee m en t auth or iz ed the bank t o r el ea se the paym en t on ce T el em undo not if ie d th e bank tha t c er

ta in c ondi tio ns o bta ine d. T he c ondi tio ns tha t T el em undo soug ht t o c onf

irm w er e that: (i ) any c ur re nt s er vic es a gr ee m en t whic h c oul d li m it the A rt ist ’ s a bil ity to re nde r to T el em

undo the se rv ic es c ont em plate d inthe S er

vic es A gr ee m en t is t er m inate d ( ei the r by

f ina l, non -a

ppe al ab le c ourt or de r or

by ava lid and en fo rc ea ble r el ea se f

ro m any party to any c ur re nt s er vic es a gr ee m en t t o w hic h th e A rt ist

is a party ), and (i i) that the A rt ist

doe s no t have any

oth er obl igatio n th at

c oul d li m it his ability to render to T elem

undo the services contem plated in the Services Agre em ent.” E m er ge nc y

Mo tio n f or T em por ar y Re str ai nin g O rd er

and P re lim inary

I nj unc tio n, Ja nu ary 20 & 2 2, 2 00 4, Pl ai nt iff s’ Exh ib it4, at4, ¶ D. On D ecem

ber 17, 2003, Islas issued a press re lease in w hich he stated that he planne d to le av e T el ev isa . T el ev isa se nt T el em

undo ale tte r on J anuary

5, 200 4, inf orm ing the m

that I sla s ha d an e xc lus ivi ty c ontra ct w hic h w oul d r

un thr ough January 200 7. T el ev isa

a lso not if

ie d I sla s onJanuary

6, 200 4 th at

it planne d to fi lm ane wte le nove labe gin nin g January 8th , and e xpe ct ed

him to re port f

or the taping. Islas did not report to Mexico for taping of T elevisa’ s proje ct on January 8th. Te lem

undo began film ing th e first proj ect in w hich it plann ed to cast Mr. Islas8

on J anuary

12, 200 4 a t i ts s tud ios in H ia le ah . T ha t sam e day T el ev isa f ile d su it against the Telem

undo Com

m unication s Gr oup, Inc. (“ TC G” ) in feder al district co urt i n M iam i, a lle gin g to rt iou s in te rf er en ce w ithc ontra ct . T el ev isa a lso requested a prelim inary

injunction to prevent TCGfrom using Islas’ s services thr oughthe dur at ionof

the T el ev isa -I sla s c ontra ct . T el ev isa f ile d ase parate m oti on f or ate m por ar y r es tr ai nin g or de r to k ee p T CGf ro m m ovi ng f or w ar d w ith it s p la ns forth e Is la s p ro

ject, a t el en ov el a whi ch was b il le d a s “ La Pri si on era.” Ac cording to Televisa, T elem undo held several m eetings with Islas betwee n Se pte m be r 2003 and N ove m

be r 2003 w hic h c ulm inate d inthe e xe cu tio n of the exclusive produ ction agreem ent on Novem ber 7, 2003 . T he contacts that T el em undo ha d w ithI sla s duri ng the pe ri od f ro m S ep te m be r 2003 thr ough N ove m be r 2003 c onsi ste d of

the f oll ow ing :

< In late Se ptem

ber 2003, Islas authorized his agent, D avid Vazquez, to m eet with Jam es McN am ara, the Pre sident and Chi ef E xecutive Off icer ( “ CE O” ) of T CG at T CG’ s offices in Florida.

< O n O ct obe r 1, 200 3, the D ir ec tor of Bu sin es s and L eg al A ff

ai rs f or the T el em undo N etw ork G ro up, L L C ( “ T N G ”) , Juan D el ga do, dr af te d anon bind ing letter of intent to Islas from his offices in Florida. The le tter out lin ed the te rm s f

or apos sib le c ontra ct

w ithI sla s. D el ga do f

ax ed the ag re em en t t o T CG ’ s P re sid en t and C E O , Jam es Mc N am ar a, w ho w as to m eet w ith David Va zquez, Islas’ agent, at a hotel in Mexico City later that s a me d ay.9

< T CG ’ s P re sid ent and C E O , Jam es Mc N am ar a, and R am on E sc obar, the E xe cu tiv e D ir ec tor

of P ro gr am m ing and P ro duc tio n f

or TN G , m et

w ith Islas’ repre sentative, D avid Vazquez, at the Four Se asons ho tel in Mexico Ci ty , Me xic o onO ct obe r 1, 200 3.

< On O ctober 3, 2003, Islas m et di rect ly w it h TCG’s Pre si de nt an d C EO Jam es Mc N am ar a, TN G ’ s E xe cu tiv e D ir ec tor of P ro gr am m ing and Pr oduc tio n, Ram on E sc obar, and TN G ’ s in -h ouse c ouns el D el ga do at the Mandarin Or iental Hotel in Miam i, F lorida. I slas’ agent, D avid Vasquez, an d tw o othe r T el em

undo r ep re se ntativ es w er e pr es en t a s w el l.

< So m et im e in e ar ly

O ct obe r 2003 , T CGr et ai ne d aMe xic ana tto rn ey , V ic tor Fr ia s, to advis e the m

on I sla s’ e xc lus ivi ty

a gr ee m en t w ithT el ev isa and any lia bil iti es that T el em

undo m igh t i nc ur

und er Me xic anc ontra ct

lawsho uld

it en ga ge I sla s to appe ar

in its pr oduc tio ns whil e the T el ev isa c ontra ct w as in effe ct .
< O n O ct obe r 10, 200 3, TN G ’ s in -h ouse c ouns el , Juan D el ga do, tr an sm itt ed a dr af t of apr opos ed

se rv ic e ag re em en t be tw ee n T el em undo and I sla s f

ro m his office in Miam i to Islas’ s representative, David Vazquez, in Mexico C i ty.

< Inlate O ct obe r or

e ar ly N ove m be r of 200 3, TN G ’ s E xe cu tiv e D ir ec tor of Pr ogr am m ing and P ro duc tio n, Ram on E sc obar, m et w ithI sla s di re ct ly

a t the G rand B ay

H ote l i n M iam i.

< O n N ove m

be r 7, 200 3, T el em

undo le ga l c ouns el D el ga do and F ri as , w ho w e r e jo i n e db y M i a mi a t t o rn e ys R u d o l p h Ar a g o n an dDa n B l o n s ky, part ic ipate d inac onf

er en ce c al l f

ro m Mi am i w ithD an ie l K

um m er , in- hous e co unse l f or N BC U niv er sa l I nc . , w hic h owns T el em undo . A ft er

the co nf er en ce c al l, K

um m er e xc hange d e m ai l m es sa ge s w ithA ra gon in M iam i. K um m er a lso se nt an e m ai l a ddr es sin g th e “ ‘ Pe dr o S m ith ’ T al en t A cquis iti on I ssu e” to vari ous T el em undo r ep re se ntativ es .
< L at er

that sam e day , on N ove m be r 7, 200 3, TN G ’ s in -h ouse c ouns el , D el ga do, and T CG ’ s M ex ic anc ouns el , F ri as , m et w ithI sla s and h is attor ne y , D av id C ohe n, a t T CG ’ s of fi ce s inF lor ida . I sla s and T el em undo entered into an agreem ent at T CG’ s offices in Florida.10

< On N ovem

ber 11, 2003, Islas and T elem undo executed a “ Conditi onal D ep osi t A gr ee m en t” w iththe Banc o N ac ion al de Mé xic o, S . A . w hic h w as to se rv e as ade posi tor

y f or the tr an sf

er of a$1, 000, 000. 00 p ay

m en t f ro m Te lem undo to Islas. T he agreem ent states that the paym ent will issue once T el em undo c onf

irm s th at I sla s ha s no oth er

e xis tin g ob lig at ion s th at

w ill im pa ct his abil ity

to pe rf orm und er the te rm s of

the N ove m

be r 7 A gr ee m en t. T he c ourt he ld a

he ar ing on T el ev isa ’ s r eque st f or ate m por ar y r es tr ai nin g order on January

14, 2004. TC G obj ected to the tem porary restra ining order, insis ting th at it had not y et film ed any of the scenes in w hich Islas was to appear . The district court denied T elevisa’ s request for a tem porary restra ining order,
n o t i n g th a tth e p l a i n t i f

f h a df a i l e dt o e s t ab l i s h i rr e p ar ab l e h arm. Te levisa filed an Am ended Com plaint against Te lem

undo in federa l district co ur t i n M ia m i o n J an ua ry 21 , 20 04 , add in g Tel em

un do Tele vi si on Stu di os , LLC (“ T T S” ) as ade fe ndant. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a he ar ing on T el ev isa ’ s r eque st f or a prelim inary

injunction on Janu ary

22, 2004. Although th e court noted that T el ev isa ha d pr es en te d c re dib le te sti m ony that l osi ng I sla s f

ro m it s r ost er of perform ers w ouldresult in “ a substanti al loss of audience and advertiser goodw ill , ” the c ourt ul tim at el y de nie d th e re que st. T he c ourt st at ed that T el ev isa ha d f ai le d to sho whow

an in j unc tio n w oul d r es tor e the los t go odw ill or pr ev en t a d d i t i o n a l i rr e p ar ab l e l o s s e s b e f o r e th e c o u rtc o u l da d

j u d i c a t e T e l e v i s a ’s c l a i m. Or der D eny ing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prelim inary Inj unction , January

27, 2004, at11

17. T el ev isa

f ile d an in te rl oc uto ry

appe al w iththe U . S. Co urt of Appe al s f

or the E le ve nthCi rc uit

on J anuary

29, 200 4, c ha lle ngi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n on thi s m atte r. T his Co urt de nie d th e ap pe al on Augus t 26 , 200 4. Inthe m eanti m e, on F eb ru ar y 9, 200 4, T el em

undo m ove d to dis m iss T el ev isa ’ s am en de d c om

pla int pur suant t o R

ule 12( b) (6 ) of

the F ed er al Ru le s of Civil Procedure, arguing that Mexican law governed the disput e and that Mexican law did no t recognize a c ause of action for tortious interfere nce. The c ourt denied Te lem undo ’ s m otion to dism iss on Marc h 9, 2004, but iss ued a subsequ ent order on June 10, 200 4, w hic h st at ed that i t w oul d tr eat T el em undo ’ s m oti on a s am oti on fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. T el ev isa f ile d aS ec ond A m en de d C om pla int on S ep te m

be r 27, 200 4, ad d i n g a d amag e c l ai m . On Oc t o b er1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e c o u rtg ra n t edTe l emun d o ’s
m otion for ca se-dispos itive summ ary j udgm ent, a

pply ing Mexican law, which does not rec ogni ze an a ction for tortious interfer ence. The court issued a final j udgm en t f

or T el em undo on O ct obe r 31, 200 5. T he re af te r, T el ev isa

f ile d aN oti ce of

Appe al w iththe U . S. Co urt of Appe al s fo r the E le ve nthCi rc uit

on N ove m

be r 25, 200 5. T el ev isa

a lso f ile d ase parate int el le ct ua l pr ope rty

a ct ionbe fo re the c ourt f

or the F ed er al D istri ct

of Me xic o to en j oinI sla s f

ro m usi ng h is o w n nam e an d li ke ne ss f or c om m er ci al pr om oti ons.12

Is la s r eque ste d ade cl ar at or y j udgm en t tha t hi s e xc lus ivi ty c ontra ct w ithT el ev isa
w as voi d and une nf

or ce ab le . Bo th a ct ion s r em ai n pe ndi ng i n M ex ic o. II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW The dec ision to award the defendants summ ary j udgm ent in this case turned on a c onf lic t- of -l aw s is sue —whe the r to a ppl y Me xic anlaw , w hic h do es not recognize an ac tion for tortiou s interfere nce w ith contract, or F lorida law, which doe s. Ac onf

lic t- of -l aw s is sue pr es en ts a

le ga l qu es tio n w hic h a

ppe llate c ourts rev ie w de nov o. A m er ic an F am ilyL ifeA ssu ranc e Co
. v . U nit ed Sta tes F ireCo
. , 885 F. 2d 8 26, 830 ( 11th C ir . 1989 ); LaF argeCo rp. v . T

rav el er s I nde m . Co
. , 118 F.3 d 1 51 1, 1 51 4- 15 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d to m ak e ce rt ai n f ac tua l f ind ing s be fo re it re s o l v edth e c o n fl i ct -o f- l aw s i s s u e i n fa v o r o f M ex i ca n l aw . We r ev i ew th e c o u rt ’s fa ct ua l f ind ing s un de r a cl earl y

e rr one ous standard , a ssuri ng o ur se lve s th at the finding s are supported by subst antial credible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P . 52(a) ; se e als o F

ior et ti v. M

ass ac huse tts G en . L ifeI

ns. Co
. , 53 F . 3d 1 228, 123 0 n. 4 ( 11th Cir. 1995 ) (a

pply ing th e clearly

err oneous standard of reviewto the factual finding s underpin ning a choice- of-lawdecision). Finally , w e re view the district court's r uling on a m otion for sum m ary j udgm en tde novo , a dhering to th e sam e legal standards that boun d the district13

co urt. Na tio nal

F ireI nsur . Co
. of H

art ford v
. F ortune Co nst . Co
. , 320 F . 3d 1 260, 12 67 (11 th Cir .), cert. denied , 540 U. S. 873 (200 3). R ule 56(c) of the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure provides th at a district court shouldgrant summ ary j udgm en t i f the r ec or d, inc lud ing ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, a dm iss ion s onf ile , and a ff

idavit s, f ai ls t o di sc los e any

ge nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t and the m ovi ng p ar

ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s am atte r of law . F ed . R. Ci v. P . 56( c) ; Na tio nal F ireI nsur . Co
. , 32 0 F .3dat 1 26 7. As we re vie wthe r ec or d onam oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, w e dr awa ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s th at

c anbe sus ta ine d by

the r ec or d and e va luate tho se inf er en ce s inthe li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . W hat le y v. CN A I ns. Co s. , 189 F . 3d 1310 , 1313 (11th Cir. 1999). III. DIS CU SSION A
. Ch oic e of L awR ules fo r F ed eral C ourt s Si tti ng i n D iv er

sit y Af ed er al c ourt si tti ng i n di ve rs ity w ill appl y

the c onf lic t- of -l aw s r ule s of th e fo ru m st at e. Klax on C

o. v . Ste nto r E le c. M

fg. Co
. , 313 U. S. 487, 496 (194 1). A s apr el im inary

m atte r, the c ourt m

ust c hara ct er iz e the le ga l i ssu e an d de te rm ine whether it soun ds in to rts, c ontracts, property law , e tc. Once it has characte rized the le ga l i ssu e, it

de te rm ine s th e ch oic e of lawr ule that the f

or um state appl ie s to14

th atpa rti cu la r type o f is su e. Ac me Circus Operating Co., Inc. v. Kuperstock , 711 F. 2d 15 38, 1540 (11t h Cir. 1983 ). Fl or ida r es olv es c onf

lic t- of -l aw s qu es tio ns a cc or din g to the “ m ost sig nif ic an t r el at ion shi p” te st o utl ine d inthe Re state m en t ( Se co nd) of Co nf lic t of Laws. B ish op v . F

lor ida Spe ci alt

y P ain t C o. , 389 So.2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980 ). T he Re state m en t ( Se co nd) of Co nf lic t of L aw s pr ovi de s a“ G en er al [ T ort] Principle” in section 145 th at is intended to inform courts as they

apply the m ore spe ci fi c “ Ch oic e of

L awP ri nc ipl es ” out lin ed in se ct ion6. T he m or e spe ci fi c

“ Ch oic e of

L awP ri nc ipl es ” ap ply

to al l are as of

laww hic h de te rm ine c hoi ce of lawthr ougham ost

sig nif ic an t r el at ion shi p te st, not j ust to iss ue s of

tor t. B
. § 14 5 of

theR es tat em en t (

Se co nd) of Co nfl ic t— Th e G en eral T ort Prin ci ple Se ct ion145 (1 ) lay s ou t the ba sic pr inc ipl e fo r tor t a ct ion s and s ec tio n 145( 2) li sts f

our “ co nta ct s” that c ourts s houl d c onsi de r in the c our se of appl y ing the spe ci fi c Ch oic e of

L awP ri nc ipl es und er

se ct ion6. S ec tio n 14 5 of the Re state m en t ( Se co nd) of

Co nf lic t of L aw s pr ovi de s: (1 ) T he r igh ts and l ia

bil iti es of the part ie s w ithr es pe ct

to aniss ue in tort are de te rm ine d by

the loc al lawof

the state w hic h, w ithr es pe ct to that i ssu e, ha s th e m ost

sig nif ic an t r el at ion shi p to the oc curr en ce and th e p art ie s u nd er t he pri nc ip le s s ta te d i n § 6. (2 ) Co nta ct s to be take n in to a cc ount in ap ply ing the pr inc ipl es of § 6 to determ ine the law a

pplicable to an iss ue include:C om ment s on s ubs ect i on 2 i ndi cat e t hat t he “ pl ace wh er e t he conduct occu r r ed” wi l l as s ume g r eat er 1 i m p o rt ance t han t he “ p l ace whe re t he i njury oc curred” i n cert ai n s i t uat i o ns. T he si t uat i o ns ci t ed i ncl ud e cases where t he i njury oc curred i n t wo or m o re s t at es, where t he p l ace o f i njury canno t be ascert ai ned or i s f o rt ui t o us and be ars lit tle re la tio n to the o c c u rr e n c e a n d the p a rtie s. R EST ATEM ENT (S E C OND ) O F C O N FL I C T O F L AW S § 1 4 5 c m t. s ubs ect i on 2 ( 19 71 ) . I ndeed, t he com ment s not e, t he “ pl ace wh er e t he conduct occu r r ed” as s umes par t i cul ar i m p o rt ance “i n t he case of t o rt s i nvo l vi ng i nt erf

erence wi t h a m arri age rel at i o nshi p or unf ai r com p et i t i o n s i nce i n t he cas e of s uch t ort s t her e i s of

t en no one c l ear l y demo ns t r abl e pl ace of i nj ur y . ” Id . O n i t s f ace, T el evi sa’ s co m p l ai nt wo ul d s eem t o present one of t ho se cas es i n whi ch a co urt wo ul d acco rd “ t he pl ace wh er e t he conduct occu r r ed” par t i cul ar i mp ort anc e. T he f act s poi nt t o i nj ur y i n t wo or more s t at es (M exi co and Flori d a) and t he i njury t hat oc curred i n one of t ho se s t at es, M exi co , be ars l i t t l e rel at i o n t o t he d ef end ant s. A l t ho ugh t he p l ai nt i f f s are ba sed i n M exi co , t he d ef end ant s are ba sed o ut si d e M exi co , i n Flori d a, and t hey en gag ed i n t he al l ege d t ort i ous conduc t , f or t he mo s t par t , at t hei r he adquar t er s i n Fl ori da. 15 (a ) the pla ce w he re the inj ur y oc curr ed , (b ) the pla ce w he re the c ondu ct c au sin g th e inj ur

y oc curr ed , (c ) the dom ic il, r es ide nc e, na tio na lity , pla ce of inc or por at ion an d pl ac e of

bus ine ss o f the part ie s, and ( d) the pla ce w he re the r el at ion shi p, if any , be tw ee n th e part ie s is ce nte re d. Se ct ion145 a dvi se s th at

“ [t ] he se c ont ac ts are to be e va luate d a cc or din g to the ir relative im

portance w ith respect to the particular issue.” Id . Inthi s c as e, the c ourt c hara ct er iz ed the na tur e of

the a lle ge d to rt

a s “ the
m isa ppr opr ia tio n of

tr ad e va lue s. ” Inke ep ing w iththe c om m en tary to se ct ion145 , the c ourt c onc lud ed

that the “pla ce of

inj ur y ” shou ld n ot p lay

an im portant r ole in a ca se of thi s ty pe a s th e pla int if

f w oul d no rm al ly

f ee l the los s m ost

a cu te ly a t hi s he ad qu art ers . See § 14 5( 2) c m t. f . H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt l ar ge ly ign or ed the re m ai nin g c om

m en tary und er thi s se ct ion , w hic h st at es that the “pr inc ipa l l oc at ion of the de fe ndant’ s c ondu ct ” is the sin gle m ost im portant c ont ac t i n c as es inv olv ing
m is ap pr op ria ti on of t rad e v al ue s. Id . 116

A lth oughit

not ed that the a lle ge d to rt iou s c ondu ct oc curr ed in both F lor ida an d M ex ic o, the c ourt de cl ine d to m ak e a fi ndi ng a s to the pr inc ipa l l oc at ionof the de fe ndant’ s c ondu ct . Whil e the f ac ts d o in dic at e that the de fe ndants he ld o ne m ee tin g w ithI sla s’ a ge nt i n M ex ic o, the y he ld f our suc h m ee tin gs w ithI sla s and / or his representatives in Miam i. T he Florida m eetings includ ed: the initial cont act betwee n representatives of both parties; the first m eeting between the parties that Is la s a tte nde d di re ct ly , w hic h de fe ndants ’ in- hous e co unse l and i ts C E O a lso atte nde d; a

se co nd m ee tin g be tw ee n I sla s and the de fe ndants ; and the m ee tin g w h e r e I s l a s an dth e d e f

e n d an t s e n t e r e di n t o an e x c l u s i v i ty a g r e e men t ; th e r e b y, br ea ch ing I sla s’ pr e- ex ist ing e xc lus ivi ty a gr ee m en t w iththe pla int if fs . T he de fe ndants a lso ge ne rate d m ost of the w ri tte n c om

m uni catio ns r eg ar din g I sla s f ro m their hom e office s in Florida. Thus, the F lorida contacts are both num erica lly and qualitativ ely

m ore s i g n i fi ca n twh en i tco m es t o d et erm i n i n g th e “pr i n ci p al l o ca t i o n o f t h e d ef en d an t ’s co nduc t. ” T he r ec or d si m ply doe sn’ t su

ppor t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to dis m iss the signi ficance of this poi nt of contact or its failure to re cognize that this contact poin ted conclusiv ely

to Florida. More over, c omm ent ‘ e’ to section 14 5 (2) notes that “ w he n th e pr im ar

y pur pose of the tor t r ule inv olv ed

is to d et er

or pun ish
m iscondu ct, the place where the c ondu ct occurre d has peculiar significance (see17

Com m ent c). ” Id . A lth ough , T el ev isa arg ue d th at

thi s w as the pr im ar

y pur pose of Florida’ s tortiou s interfere nce rule, the court rej ected this argum ent. T he district co urt c onc lud ed

that the pr im ar

y pur pose of the a lle ge d to rt

w as to pr ote ct

pr ope rty ri ght s inc ontra ct , not

to re gul at e co nduc t, a s th e pla int if fs a sse rt ed . H ow ev er , a s c om

m ent ‘ c’ in se ct ion145 (1 ) of the Re state m en t ( Se co nd) of Co nf lic t of L aw s no te s, “ [t ] o so m e ex te nt, a t l ea st, e ve ry tor t r ule is de sig ne d bo th to d et er oth er w ro ngdo er s and t o c om

pe nsate the inj ur ed

pe rs on. ” Fl or ida ’ s lawof tortious interfer ence is clearly conduct-regulating o n som e level since the law al lo ws fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es , whi ch are m ean t t o p un is h wro ng do ers . See HGI A sso cs . v . W

et m orePrin tin g C

o. , 42 7 F .3d86 7, 8 76 -7 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . A nd, a lth oughF lor ida

doe s no t ge ne ra lly

r ec ogni ze pun iti ve dam ag es f or br ea chof c ontra ct c la im s, it m ay r ec ogni ze the m

“ w he re the a ct s c onst itu tin g a breach of c ontract also am ount to a cause of a ction in to rt.” Id . ( ci tin g Griffith v. Shamrock Vill. , I

nc. , 94 S o. 2d 8 54, 858 ( Fl a. 195 7) ). I n su chc as es , the und er ly ing tort m ust be ba se d on“ anint en tio na l wro ng, w ill fu l or w an tonm isc ondu ct , or culpable neglig ence, the extent of which am ount s to an indepen dent tort... .” S. B el l Te l. & T el
. Co
. v . H

anf t , 436 So. 2d 40 , 42 (F la. 1983 ). This is clear ly

the case w ith respect to Te levisa’ s com plaint, which alleges an intentio nal tort. Pe rsons who com m it tortiou s interfere nce w ith a contract desire,T he d i st ri ct co urt vent ured t o ad d , how ever, t hat t he p art i es s hare a conne ct i o n t o Is l as and t he und erl y i ng 2 co nt ract ual rel at i o nshi p t hat gi ves r i se t o t he cl ai m be t ween Isl as and T el evi sa. M o re s i gni f i cant l y , pe rhaps, t he rec o rd sugg ests t ha t t he t w o p arti es sha re in a b usiness rivalry si nc e their S p an i sh tel ev i si o n p ro gra m s are b ro ad ca st o n c o m p e ting sta tio n s in th e U n ited S ta te s. A ltho u g h T e le v isa d o e s n o t b ro a d c a st it s p ro d u c tio n s in th e U .S . d ire c tly, it d o e s lice n se the m fo r b ro a d c a st thr o u g h U n ivisio n , a c o rp o ra tio n in w h ic h T e le v isa ho ld s a n un c o n so lid a te d e q u ity i nt erest . U ni vi si o n op erat es t wo of t he t hree Sp ani sh l anguage t el evi si o n net wo rks t hat bro ad cast wi t hi n t he U . S., and T el emundo op er at es t he ot her . T el evi s a a l s o m ai nt ai ns i t s i nt er nat i onal s al es of f i ce i n Fl ori da. T hu s , t o t he ext ent t hat T e le v isa , t h ro u g h it s lice n se e U n ivisio n , an d T e le m u n d o c o m p e te fo r a sh a re o f t h e S p a n ish tele v isio n m a rk e t, the ir bu s i n es s r i v al r y i s a r g u abl y c en t er ed i n Fl or i da, a n d h er s i s t er s t at es , bu t c er t ai n l y n ot M ex i co. 18 or a t the ve ry

le as t anti ci pa te , c er

ta in c onse que nc es suc h a s br ea ch . By r ef usi ng t o re co gni ze that F lor ida ’ s to rt iou s in te rf er en ce r ule is int en de d to r eg ulate c ondu ct , the district court und ervalued the im portance of the contacts relating to the place
w he re the c ondu ct

c au sin g th e inj ur

y oc curr ed . W ith respect to the other contacts listed un der section 145(2), the court fo und, qui te c or

re ct ly , that the y

w er e inc onc lus ive f

or the pur pose s of de te rm ini ng choice of lawin this case. T hose contacts inclu de: “ the dom icil, r esidence, nationalit y , plac e of incorporation and place of business of the parties, ”§ 145(2)(c), and the “ place where the r elationshi p between the parties, if any , is ce ntered,” § 145( 2) (d ). Ce rt ai nly , T el ev isa and T el em

undo do n ot s hare any

c ont ac ts i n te rm s of dom icil, nationality , plac e of incorporation. Moreover , the par ties agreed that they share no r el at ion shi p. 2 C. § 6 of th e R estatement (Sec ond) of Con flict—Specific Choice of Law Principles H av ing c onc lud ed

that the se ct ion145 (2 ) co nta ct s di d no t po int c onc lus ive ly to either Florida or Mexico f or choice of lawpurposes, the district court exam ined19

the se ct ion6 f

ac tor s to “ re sol ve the standof f. ” Se ct ion6 of

the Re state m en t (Sec ond) of Conflict of Laws provides that, absent a statutory directive on a choice of law , a state w ill consid er the f

ollowing factors for their r elevance to the issue: (a ) the ne ed s of

the int er state and i nte rn at ion al sy ste m s, ( b ) th e r e l e v an tp o l i c i e s o f th e f o r u m, (c ) the r el ev an t po lic ie s of oth er int er es te d st at es and the r el at ive interests of those states in th e determ ination s of the particular issue, (d ) the pr ote ct ionof

j ust if ie d e xpe ct at ion s, (e) t he ba si c p ol ic ie s u nd erl y in g t he pa rti cu la r fi el d o f la w, (f ) ce rt ai nty , pr ed ic ta

bil ity and unif orm ity of r es ult , and (g ) ea se in the de te rm inatio n and a ppl ic at ionof

the lawto be appl ie d. R EST ATEMENT (S E COND ) OF C ON FL I CT OF L AW S § 6(2)(a) -(g) ( 1971 ). T he c om m en tary to thi s se ct ionc au tio ns tha t the f ac tor s are not

li ste d in order of r elative im

portance and that vary ing weight will be given to particular fact or s i n d iff

eren t ar eas of l aw. Id . § 6(2) cm t. c . Unfortunately , the district court
w ei ghe d th e vari ous fa ct or s a s th oughT el ev isa ’ s to rt iou s in te rf er en ce c la im soun de d inc ontra ct

law . Y et , a s c om

m en t ‘ v’ und er

se ct ion766 of

the Re state m en t (S ec ond) of

T orts e xpl ai ns, apla int if f m ay m ai nta in an a ct iona ga ins t a thi rd party fo r tortio us i nte rf

er en ce and a

se parate a ct iona ga ins t anothe r party f or br ea chof contract. Both the breaching party and the party

who induced that party

to breach h i s c o n tr a c tar e w r o n g d o e r s an dar e l i ab l e t o th e p l a i n t i f f f o r h arm. R E S T AT E MENT (S E COND ) OF T OR TS § 766 cm t. v. (1979).T h e cou r t c i t ed S m ith v . O c e a n S ta te B a n k , 335 So. 2d 641, 642 ( Fl a. 1s t D CA 1976) a s su p p o rt fo r th is 3 pr opos i t i on , bu t t h e cou r t a ppea r s t o h av e r ea d S m ith t o o bro ad l y . T he ap p el l ant i n S m ith w as s u i n g a ba n k f or inte rfe rin g in a n a rr a n g e m e n t t h a t he m a d e to p u rc h a se silve r w ith lo a n fun d s fro m the b a n k . A ltho u g h the b a n k ’s n ot e h ad n ot y et c ome du e, t h e ban k pr ot es t ed t h e pr opos ed dea l t o t h e ex ch an g e an d t h at e n ded i t . T h e i s s u e on ap p eal was whet her t he ap p el l ant had m ad e o ut a cl ai m f o r t o rt i o us i nt erf

erence i n a busi ness rel at i o nshi p be cause he had n ot as s er t ed brea ch of an en f orce abl e c ont r act . T he t r i al cour t r ul ed t hat he ha d not . T he appel l at e c our t r eve r s ed the d e c isio n , ru ling tha t a p la intiff c o u ld m a inta in a c la im fo r to rtio u s inte rfe re n c e w ith a b u sin e ss r e la tio n sh ip r eg ar dl es s of

w h et h er h e h ad an e n f or ce abl e con t r ac t or n ot . I d. T h e appe l l at e cou r t c i t ed 45 A M . J UR . 2 D I nt er f er ence § 3 9 , whi ch st at es t hat t he t heo ry be hi nd t he d o ct ri ne o f t o rt i o us i nt erf

erence “i s t hat t he ri ght t o pe rf o rm a c ont r act an d t o re ap t he prof i t s r es ul t i ng f

r om s uch per f

ormanc e, an d al s o t he r i gh t t o perf ormanc e by t he ot her 20 Mor eo ve r, und er

F lor ida law , apla int if

f can m ai nta in a

c au se of a ct ion ag ai nst athi rd party f or tor tio us i nte rf

er en ce in a co ntr ac t e ve n th oughhe m igh t no t be ab le to en fo rce t he un de rlyin g c on tra ct . B orde r C oll ie R es cu e, I

nc . v . R ya n , 418 F. S upp. 2d 1 330, 134 4 ( D . F la . 200 6) ( ci tin g United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. G ill es pie , 377 S o. 2d 6 68, 672 ( Fl a. 197 9 ) ). T his f ac t su gge sts that the te rm s of the unde rl y ing c ontra ct

and the part ie s’ e xpe ct at ion s sh oul d have li ttl e be ar ing on the lawthat go ve rn s th ir d party int er fe re nc e in tha t c ontra ct . N ev er the le ss, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the “ ne ed s of

the int er state and int er na tio na l f or um s, ” “ the r el ev an t po lic ie s of oth er int er es te d st at es , ” “ the pr ote ct ionof

j ust if ie d e xpe ct at ion s, ” an d “ ce rt ai nty , pr ed ic ta bil ity and unif orm ity of result” all w eighed heavilyin favor of Mexico beca use the und erly ing cont ract w as ba se d th er e. I t a lso f

ound that a ppl ic at ionof

F lor ida laww oul d do nothin g to advanc e the “ re le vant p oli ci es of the f or um ” be ca use F lor ida ’ s pr im ar

y pur pose in allowing tortiou s interfere nce claim s was to protect r ights to perform ance of a c o n tr a c t . Wh e n r i g h t s t o th e p e r f o rman c e o f

ac o n tr a c te x i s ti nan o th e r f o r u m, 3par t y , a r e pr oper t y r i g h t s w h i ch e n t i t l e ea ch pa r t y t o pr ot ec t i on a g ai n s t a l l t h e wor l d, a n d t o s ee k c ompen s at i on by

a c tio n in to rt fo r a n y inj u rie s to su c h c o n tra c t. T h e inte re st p ro te c te d ha s b e e n sa id to b e the rig h t o f t h e ind ivid u a l t o s ecu r i t y i n h i s bus i nes s r el at i ons , t hat i s , t he r i gh t t o hav e pr es er ved t he un dert aki ng of per s ons wi t h w hom he h as com merc i al deal i ng s . ” S m ith , 3 3 5 So . 2d at 64 2 . T hus, i n S m ith , t h e c o u rt w a s e m p h a siz ing the p la intiff ’s righ t t o r ece i ve com pens at i on f or h i s i nj ur y — one of

t he pur po s es behi nd t he t ort , but not ne ces s ar i l y t he onl y or eve n pri mary pur po s e beh i nd t he t ort r ul e. T he cour t di d not hol d t hat t he pri mary pur po s e of t he t ort r ul e wa s t o prot ect lo c a lly- b a se d c o n tra c ts o r th a t F lo rid a ha s n o inte re st in re g u la ting to rtio u s inte rfe re n c e w ithin it s b o rd e rs p e r se . Id .

. 21 Florida has no interest in protecting such outs ide property rights, the court re as one d. A cc or din gly , the c ourt c onc lud ed that M ex ic o r ep re se nte d th e state w ith the m ost sig nificant relationship to the parties and the occurrence . W e be lie ve that the c ourt ov er state d th e ex te nt t o w hic h th e “ ne ed s of the int er state and i nte rn at ion al sy ste m s” f av or the appl ic at ionof

Me xic anlawin thi s ca se . I nde ed , the c ourt st at ed that those ne ed s c oul d on ly be m et thr oughthe ap pli catio n of

Me xic anlawsin ce the c ontra ct ing part ie s w er e both M ex ic an , the contract w as to be perform ed in Mexico and Mexican law governed any contractual dis put es . Appl y ing F lor ida lawin thi s c as e, the c ourt r ea sone d, w oul d un de rm ine the int er na tio na l c om

m er ci al sy ste m . I n su chac as e, the part ie s w oul d be e xpor tin g Florida lawto control the right s and liabilit ies of a Me xican contract, the court co nc lu de d. Te levisa is not seeking to enforce its contract rights against Islas und er Fl or ida c ontra ct law , how ev er . A nd, the F lor ida lawthat T el ev isa

is se ek ing to im pose w ill do n oth ing to ef fe ct it s r igh ts and l ia

bil iti es und er

the I sla s c ontra ct .22

Te levisa is seeking to apply Florida tort lawthat will com pensate it for the losses ca use d by athi rd party ’ s in te rf

er en ce in the I sla s c ontra ct . T ha t thir d party is a co rp or at e dom ic ili ar

y of F lor ida and i t a lle ge dly

use d F lor ida

a s th e ve nue f

or it s tortio us a ct s. D eny ing Me xic anbus ine sse s th e ri ght to sue F lor ida

dom ic ili ar ie s f

or tortious interfer ence in their contrac ts would do li ttle to “ facilitate c omm ercia l in te rco ur se ” b et ween Mex ic o a ndFlo rid a. See R EST ATEMENT (S E COND ) OF C ON FL I CT OF L AW S § 6 cmt. d (1971). The r ecord indicates, f or exam ple, that T el ev isa m ai nta ins it s inte rn at ion al sa le s of fi ce in Fl or ida . A s th e “ A sso ci at ionof Pr oduc er s and D istri but or s of Me xic anF ilm s” and the “N at ion al Ch am be r of Co m m er ce f or the Ra dio and T el ev isi on I ndus tr ie s ( of Me xic o) ” ind ic at ed

in the ir am icus curiae brief

, the district court’ s ruling wouldhinder the abilityof Mexican co m panie s to c om

pe te in the int er

na tio na l m ar

ke tpl ac e. T he y

arg ue that i f the ru lin g w er e af

fi rm ed , it w oul d be tantam ount

to gr an tin g F lor ida

dom ic ili ar ie s a sa fe have n f

ro m w hic h to int er fe re in fo re ignc ontra ct s. Cl earl y , thi s w oul d no t se rv e the ne ed s of

the int er na tio na l sy ste m s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso appe ar s to have a cc or de d to o m uc h w ei ght

to w ha t the

“ j ust if ie d e xpe ct at ion s of

the part ie s” w er e, c onc lud ing that the y w ei ghe d he av ily in favor of Mexico. Gr anted, T elevisa and Islas stipul ated that Mexico’ s Federa l23

Co py ri ght laww oul d go ve rnint er

pr et at ionof

the e xc lus ivi ty

c ontra ct and a ll dis put es ari sin g out of

that c ontra ct . H ow ev er , the ir a gr ee m en t di d no t anti ci pa te tortio us i nte rf

er en ce by athi rd party . A s th e Fl or ida

S upr em e Co urt po int ed

out w he n it c ontra ste d c ontra ct

a ct ion s and t ort a ct ion s in Sturi ano v. B rooks , 523 So.2d 1126, 1130 (Fla. 1988 ), “ [w ] ith tort law, there is no agreem ent, no forese en se t of r ule s and s ta tut es w hic h th e part ie s ha d r ec ogni ze d w oul d c ontro l the li ti ga ti on .” W e also note that intent ional torts are not like negli gent torts. When parties co m m it a ne gli ge nt a ct , the y

giv e no thoug ht t o th e le ga l c onse que nc es of the ir conduct or to th e particular law that m ay apply . S ee R EST ATEMENT (S E COND ) OF C ON FL I CT OF L AW S § 6(2) cm t. g (1971). Intentional to rts, how ever, presuppos e a ce rt ai n le ve l of

aw ar en es s, ar ec ogni tio n of pot en tia l c onse que nc es . A s th e fa ct s de m onstrate , T el em

undo w as aw ar e that i ts a ct ion s w er e lik el y to ind uc e Is la s to br ea chhis c ontra ct

w ithT el ev isa

and m ove to Fl or ida

w he re T el em

undo f ilm s it s productio ns. T hat was the obj ective. Indeed, T elem

undo had its legal couns el research the question o f w hether T el ev isa m igh t be able to pur sue ac la im a ga ins t i t un de r Fl or ida

tor t l aw . A lth ough the part ie s’ j ust if

ie d e xpe ct at ion s m ay

not be a s pi vot al af

ac tor f or de te rm ini ng24

choice of lawin torts issu es as it is for contrac ts issu es, to the extent that it figures in this case at all, w e find that it poin ts to Florida. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rta l s o c o n c l u d e dth a ti tc o u l db e s ta s s u r e “ c e rt a i n ty, pr ed ic ta bil ity and unif orm ity of r es ult ” by

appl y ing Me xic anlaw . I n do ing so, it fo cu se d on ce a ga in o n th e na tur e of the und er ly ing c ontra ct

a s op pose d to the nature of the alleged tort. Given that the plaintiffs are Mexican, and that they sti pul at ed Me xic anlawsho uld

gov er n th e unde rl y ing c ontra ct , the c ourt op ine d, “ if the law we re e qual in bo th states, [p] laintiffs would have filed in Mexico.” T his a ssum es that the pla int if fs c oul d have f

ile d an a ct iona ga ins t the defendants in Mexico and si m ply want to avail them selves of m ore liberal r ecovery law s inadif

fe re nt f or um . I n su chac as e, ac ourt c oul d si m ply de ny j ur isd ic tio n on the gr ound s of

for um non c onv en ie ns . But the re is nothin g inthe r ec or d to sug ge st that the plainti ffs could have filed this suit in Mexico. Me xican j urisdictio n does not have the extra-terr itorial reac h that the ind ividu al states enj oy in the U. S. Me xic anlawappl ie s to a ll pe rs ons w ith in t he c ountry

and t o a ll ev en ts tha t oc cur the re . F ed er al Ci vil Co de , P re lim inary P ro vis ion s, A rt ic le 12 i n: M E XI CAN C IVIL C OD E ANN OTATED . B ILIN G U A L E DI T I ON . T ransl at ed by P ro fe sso r Jor ge A . V ar ga s. T hom son/W es t P ubl ish ing Co . 200 5 a t 3. T he de fe ndants c om m itt ed the ir a lle ge dly25

tortious acts outside Mexico, and neither one of the defendants are Mexican co rp or at io ns . Mor eo ve r, to the e xte nt tha t “ ce rt ai nty , pr ed ic ta bil ity and unif orm ity of re sul t” f igure in thi s part ic ular ch oic e of lawque sti on, the se f

ac tor s f av or the application o f Florida law . T he Restatem ent (Sec ond) of Conflict of Laws states that “ [p] redictability

and uniform ity

of result are of particular im portance in area s w he re the part ie s are li ke ly to giv e advanc e tho ught

to the le ga l c onse que nc es of their transactions.” REST ATEMENT (S E COND ) OF C ON FL I CT OF L AW S § 6 (2 ) cmt. i (1 971) . T his e xpl ai ns i n part w hy the lawa llo w s part ie s “ to c hoos e the lawthat w ill determ ine the validityand effe ct of their contrac t.” Id . T he plaintiffs’ action does not tur n onthe te rm s of

it s c ontra ct

w ithI sla s, how ev er . F lor ida laww oul d a llo w the plaintiffs to m aintain a cause of a ction for tortious interfer ence even if the Islas co nt ract were v oi dabl e. Se e, e . g. , Border Collie Rescue, 418 F . S upp. 2d at 13 44. Rather, the plaintiffs’ action turns on the conduct of entities th at are not even parties to the contract. As w e have noted, T elem undo rec ogni zed that Florida law
m igh t go ve rnit s c ondu ct sho uld it int er fe re in T el ev isa ’ s c ontra ct w ithI sla s and i t ch ose to int er fe re , non ethe le ss. T hus, the de fe ndants did giv e advanc e tho ught

to the consequences of their actions and sh ouldnot be surprised to find them selves li ab le un de r Fl or id a la w.26

Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the appl ic at ionof

Me xic anlawc oul d, co nc ei vably , a dvanc e a Me xic anpol ic y int er es t r el at ing to co ntr ac ts, w he re as the ap pli catio n of

F lor ida laww oul d do nothin g to a dvanc e the pol ic y int er es ts o f the fo rum . ( Co ntr as t R EST ATEMENT (S E COND ) OF C ON FL I CT OF L A WS § 6 (2 )( c) w ith§ 6 (2)(b)) . T his findi ng relies upon pure conj ecture. The district court speculated that M ex ic o m igh t have apol ic y of f ac ili ta tin g “ ef

fi ci en t br ea ch ” of

c ontra ct s, but did no t cite a single legal authority in supp ort of this propo sition . I ndeed, this Court re fu se d to a cc ep t a

“ fo re igninv es tm en t i nte re st” the or y w hic h on e of

the part ie s in Cortes v. A me rican Airlines, Inc. , 177 F. 3d 12 72, 1301 (11t h Cir. 1999 ), advanced unde r a ch oic e of

lawana ly sis be ca

use the party

did not pr es en t any

e vid en ce in supp or t o f th e th eo ry . A lth oughit

w as pla usi ble that su chasc he m e co uld be de sig ne d to e nc our ag e non-do m iciliary

corporations to transact bus iness within a jurisdiction, this Court obse rv ed in Cortes , “ a party

invok ing th e theory

m ust addu ce evidence to support the a ssum pti ons unde rl y ing the the or y . . . . I n th e ab se nc e of

suc h e vid en ce , the assum ption s underly ing th is theory are ‘ too strained to m erit serious we ight u nder section 6(2)(c), ’ ” Id

. ( quot ing Ju dge v . A m er ic an M oto rs C orp , 908 F . 2d 1 565, 1572 -73 (11th Cir. 1980)).See , e. g. , t hi s C o urt ’ s d i scus si o n i n Judge , 9 0 8 F .2d at 1 5 7 1 , as to wh ethe r M ex i co ’ s p ro hib i t i o n a ga i nst 4 wr on g f u l de at h c l ai ms mi g h t r ef l ec t a n e con omi c pol i cy c on s i der at i on . T h i s Cour t t h eor i ze d t h at t h e pr oh i bi t i on m i ght ref

l ect a de si re t o i m m uni ze cert ai n s o ci al l y us ef ul ent erpri ses f

rom t he “ chi l l i ng” ef

f ect of ad vers e d am age a w a rd s. Y e t, the c ru c ia l q u e stio n , t h is C o u rt o b se rv e d , w a s, “w h e the r, o n the fac ts o f t h is p a rtic u la r c a se , M e x ic o ’s economi c pol i cy wi l l be adva nce d by t he appl i cat i on of i t s wr ongf

ul deat h pr ohi bi t i on. ” Id . 27 A ssum ing , arg ue ndo, that M ex ic o ha s apol ic y of f ac ili ta tin g “ ef

fi ci en t br ea ch , ” the c ru ci al que sti on i s whe the r that po lic y w oul d be a dvanc ed

by application o f its rule re garding tortio us interference claim s. It is difficult to see 4 how a hy poth etical Mexican poli cy favoring “ effic ient breach” w ouldbe advanced by de ny ing T el ev isa

the r igh t t o ob ta in r edre ss i n F lor ida w he n athi rd

party co m m its tor tio us a ct s inF lor ida

that i nte rf

er e w ithT el ev isa ’ s M ex ic anc ontra ct . A lth oughMe xic o m igh t no t have apol ic y that w oul d be a dvanc ed

by apply ing its lawin this si tuation , F lorida does. T he district court found o therwise, but th is findin g proceeds from an overly

broad reading of Sm ith . S ee supra not e 3. A s th e pr ec ed ing dis cu ssi on o n se ct ion145 (2 ) ha s no te d, F lor ida ha s astr ong int er es t i n de te rr ing tor

tio us i nte rf

er en ce w ithc ontra ct s by

tho se w ho o pe rate ins ide the state’ s borders. S ee sup ra pp. 17- 18. T he f ina l f ac tor to be c onsi de re d f

or de te rm ini ng the “ m ost

sig nif ic an t re la tio nshi p” und er

se ct ion6( 2) is the “ ea se in the de te rm inatio n and a ppl ic at ionof the law to be applied.” See R EST ATEMENT (S E COND ) OF C ON FL I CT OF L A WS § 6(2)(g) ( 1971 ). The court concluded th at this factor favored Mexico because a28

“ Me xic anpla int if

f shou ld l ook to M ex ic anlawto re m edy an in te rf er en ce w itha Me xic anc ontra ct . ” Bu t su chac om m en t i gnor es the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n an a ct ion fo r br ea chof

c ontra ct and o ne ba se d up on the tor t of de lib er at e int er fe re nc e w itha co ntr ac t. N oth ing c oul d be e as ie r than f or ac ourt i n F lor ida

to ap ply F lor ida lawto to rti ou s co nd uc t wh ic h t oo k p la ce i n F lo rid a. IV. CO NC LUS ION W e fi nd tha t the f

ac tor s to be c onsi de re d inde te rm ini ng whe the r Me xic o or Florida has the “ m ost sig nificant relationship ” to the parties and the conduct al le ge d inthi s c as e tip the sc al es de ci de dly in favor of F lor ida . A cc or din g to the co m m en tary f or se ct ion145 of

the Re state m en t ( Se co nd) of the Co nf lic t of L aw s, the “pr inc ipa l l oc at ionw he re the de fe ndant’ s c ondu ct oc curr ed ” w oul d be the sin gle m ost

sig nif ic an t “ co nta ct ” in this ty

pe of c as e. T he f

ac ts i ndi cate that the

“principal location ” w as the defendant’ s hom e base in Florida. The court declined to m ak e a fi ndi ng a s to “ the pla ce w he re the c ondu ct c au sin g in

j ur y oc curr ed . ” T his led the court to conclud e that none of the section 14 5(2) contacts point ed co nc lus ive ly

tow ar ds e ith er

F lor ida or Me xic o. W e fi nd tha t the se ct ion145 (2 ) co n t ac t s p o i n tco n cl u s i v el y t o Fl o ri d a. Th i s cl ea r e rr o r s k ew edth e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s choice of lawanaly sis against Florid a.29

T he c ourt a lso r ef

use d to r ec ogni ze that F lor ida ha s an in te re st i n de te rr ing tortio us i nte rf

er en ce w ithac ontra ct

pe r se , r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r the und er ly ing contract w as m ade in Florida. This err or also skewed the analy sis against Florid a. T he c ourt c om

poun de d th is e rr or

by appl y ing the c hoi ce of

lawf ac tor s ou tli ne d in se ct ion6( 2) (a )- (g ) of

the Re state m en t ( Se co nd) of Co nf lic t of L aw s a s th oughthe pla int if fs ’ c la im sounde d inc ontra ct . I t f

oc use d to o m

uc h a tte nti on o n th e te rm s of the T el ev isa -I sla s c ontra ct , and the e xpe ct at ion s th at the part ie s ha d w ithr es pe ct to thi s c ontra ct , m ini m iz ing the ind ep en de nt s ign if ic an ce of T el ev isa ’ s to rt

c la im ag ai nst T el em undo . A s ar es ult , it

a cc or de d f

ac tor s th at

c oul d f av or Me xic o if

thi s w er e, ind ee d, ac onf

lic t ov er c ontra ct lawm or e w ei ght

than th ey de se rv ed in thi s co nf li ctin vo lv in g t or t l aw. Accep ti ng th e u nd erl y in g fa ct or s as co ns id eredby the di st ric t co ur t, we co nc lud e the re w as am isa ppl ic at ionof

the c ontro lli ng l aw . T he auth or iti es gui din g a determ ination under a choice of laws issue com pel a conclusion that this alleged tortio us i nte rf

er en ce tor t c la im is gove rn ed

by the sub stanti ve lawof

F lor ida . T he summ ary j udgm ent entered by

the district court is vacated and the m atter r em anded fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED.