N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OM AN C HAC ON, a

n Ariz ona re s ide nt, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. OHIO STATE LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, a Te xa s c orporation a uthoriz e d to do a

nd doing busine ss within the State of Ariz ona ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-17505 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00574-HR H
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na H. R usse l Holla

nd, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : LUC ER O, ** GR

AB E R , a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . R om an C h a c on a

ppe a ls from

a sum m ary judgm e nt favoring theOhio Sta te Life Insura

nc e C om pa ny (“ OSL” ). The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t C ha c on’ s 

# FIL ED FEB 15 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.c la im s for bre a c h of c ontra c t a n d insura nc e ba d fa ith a

re ba rre d by Ne w M e xic o’ s
a pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita

tions, N.M . Stat. § 37-1-10. C ha c on a rgue s tha t the distric t c o urt inste a d should ha ve a pplie d Ariz ona ’ s sta

tute of lim ita

tions, Ariz
. R e v. Stat. § 12-502, under whic h his c l a im s a re tim e ly . Exe rc i sing jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, were ve rse and re m and. W e re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination a s to c hoic e of la w. Zinse r v. Ac c ufix R e s e arc h Inst., Inc ., 253 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th C i r. 2001). “ In a dive rsity c a se , the distric t c ourt m

ust a pply the c hoic e -of-lawrule s of the sta te in whic h it sits.”

Aboga dos v. AT& T, Inc ., 223 F.3d 932, 934 (9th C i r. 2000).

“ Ariz ona c o urts a pply the princ iple s of the R e sta t e m e nt (Se c o nd) of C onflic t of Laws (1971) to de te rm i n e the c ontrolling la w for m ultista te torts.” B ate s v. Supe rior C ourt, 749 P.2d 1367, 1369 (Ariz
. 1988) (footnoteom itte d). R e sta te m e nt § 142 spe c ific a lly

a ddre sse s the pa

rtie s’ pre s e nt dispute

— whic h sta te ’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions a pplie s. OSL a

rgue s tha t § 142 doe s not c ontrol be c a use the introduc tory

note to thec ha

pte r c o nta ining § 142 sta

te s tha t “ [t] his C ha pte r doe s not de a l with thesitua tions whe re fe d e ra l c ourts a pply State la w.” R e sta te m e nt (Se c ond) of C onflic t of La ws c h. 6, intro. note . B ut tha t note sim ply
re ite rate s the fam ilia

r princ iple of Erie R a ilroa d C o. v. Tom pkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), tha

t “ in a l l c a se s whe re a

fe de ra l c ourt is e xe rc ising jurisdiction sole ly

2be c a

use of the dive rsity

of c itiz e nship of thepa

rtie s, the outc om e of the litiga tion in the fe d e ra l c o urt should be substa ntia lly the sa m e , so fa r a s le ga l rule s de t e rm ine the o utc om e of a

litiga t ion, a s it would be

if trie d in a State c ourt,” Gua r. Tr. C o. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109 (1945); see a lso Alba no v. She a

Hom e s Ltd. P’ ship, 634 F.3d 524, 530 (9th C ir. 2011) (orde r) (“ A fe de ra l c ourt sitting in dive rsity a p plie s the substa

ntive la w of the sta

te , inc luding thesta

te ’ s sta tute of lim ita tions.” ). B e c a

use Ariz ona

would a pply R e sta te m e nt § 142 in this insta

nc e , se e J a c kson v. C ha

ndle r, 61 P.3d 17, 18-19 (Ariz . 2003), so m u st we . R e sta te m e nt § 142 1 “ be gins with the ge ne ra l rule tha t the lim ita

t ions pe riod of the forum

will a pply , unle ss e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s m a ke suc h a re s ult
unre a s ona

ble an d, in c a se s in whic h the c la im will not be

ba rre d unde r the forum ’ s sta tute , e ithe r of the c onjunc tive fa c tors sta te d in se c tion 142(2) is not sa tisfie d.” De Loa c h v. Alfre d , 960 P.2d 628, 630-31 (Ariz . 1998). Thus, a c la im tha t is tim e ly in theforum sta

t e will bere

je c te d “ only

whe n the sta

te ha s no substa

ntia l inte re s t a n d the a c tion is ba

rre d in a nothe r sta te with a c lose r re lat ionship to the
c la im .” Ja c kson, 61 P.3d a t 19.

1 Ariz ona a pplie s R e sta

te m e nt § 142 a s re vise d in 1988. Se e Ja c kson, 61 P.3d at 18. 3Ariz ona ha s a substa ntia l inte re st in giving its m i nor re side nts a

n opportunity to m a inta in c la im s whe n the y re a c h the a ge of m a jority . Se e Ha

y e s v. C ont’ l Ins. C o., 872 P.2d 668, 676 (Ariz
. 1994) (“ The right to pursue c om m o n-la wdam a ge
re m e die s is prote c t e d by

c onstitutiona

l te xt, ha s origins in the

founda tion a nd history of our sta

te , a nd ha s be e n je a lously

prote c t e d by

this c ourt’ s jurisprude nc e from the first da

y s of sta te hood.” (footnote om itte d)). Furthe r, C h a c o n is plainly not “ forum

shopping,” a s he is a

long-sta nding Ariz ona

re side nt who m ove d to the sta te whe n he wa s te n y e ars old. C f. Huy nh v. C h a s e M anhatta

n B ank, 465 F.3d 992, 1001-02 (9th C ir. 2006). OSL ha s not ide ntifie d a ny “ e x c e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s ” wa rranting a d i ffe re nt outc om e . Thus, under R e sta te m e nt § 142, Ariz ona ’ s sta

tute of lim ita

tions c ontrols a

nd C ha c on’ s c la im s are tim e ly
. W e RE V E RSE a

nd RE M AND
.

4