N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STARR INDEMN ITY & LIAB ILITY C OM PANY, a s Subroge e of M e d-Trans, a c orporation a

nd M ED-TR

ANS C ORPOR ATION, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. R OLLS-R OYC E C ORPOR ATION a nd R OLLS-R OYC E NOR TH AM ER IC A INC ORPOR

ATED, De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts. No. 16-17291

D.C . No. 4:14-c v-02100-B GM 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 B ruc e G. M a c dona ld, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

16, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , N.R . SM ITH, a nd FRIEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED JUN 05 2018 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.In this c hoic e of la w c a se , R olls-R oy c e a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation tha

t, unde r Ariz ona

c hoic e of la

w rule s, Ariz ona

(ra the r tha

n Te xa s) la w a pplie s. W e re ve rse in this inte rloc utory a ppe a l. Ariz ona follows thec hoic e of la

w princ i ple s ide ntifie d in the R e sta te m e nt (Se c ond) of C onflic t of La ws. Bate s v . Supe rior C

ourt , 749 P.2d 1367, 1369 (Ariz . 1988). The R e sta

te m e nt ide ntifie s se ve ra l fa c t ors to de te rm ine whic h forum ha s a m ore signific ant re lationship with the pa rtie s. S e e R e sta te m e nt (Se c ond) of C onflic t of La

ws § 145 (Am . La

w Inst. 1971). One

of the se fa c tors is thepa

rtie s’ princ ipa l pla c e of busine s s. Id. § 145(2)(c ). In this c a se , the pa rtie s a gre e tha

t M e dTrans C orporation’ s (M e d-Trans) princ ipa l pla c e of busine ss is thedispositive fa c t or in the c hoic e of la

w a na ly sis. In the distric t c ourt, the pa rtie s brie fe d the princ i pa l pla c e of busine ss issue unde r the “ ne rve c e nt e r” te st se t forth in H e rtz C orp. v . Frie nd , 559 U.S. 77, 80-81 (2010), a nd the distric t c ourt a

p plie d this sta

nda rd in its c hoic e of la

w a na ly sis. On a ppe a l, Appe lle e s now a

rgue tha t He rtz i s not a

binding c a se unde r Ariz ona la w, so the c ourt should a

p p ly a m ore “ fle xible ” sta

n da rd tha n the ne rve c e nte r te st. Although it is true

tha t He rtz is not binding with re s pe c t to Ariz ona ’ s c hoic e of la w ana ly sis, theSupre m e C ourt’ s rationa le for a d opting thene rve c e nt e r te st is pe rsua sive . Id. at 92-95 (ide ntify ing ra tiona le s for the ne rve c e nte r te st inc l uding 2sim

plic i ty and pre d ic ta

bility). M ore ove r, Appe l le e s c onc e de d at ora l argum e nt tha

t the y have not offe re d a

ny a lte rnative te st for de te rm ining princ ipa l pla c e of busine ss. Ac c ordingly , we find no e rror in the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to use the ne rve c e nte r te st.

“ W e re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s c hoic e of la w de te rm ination” but

“ [w] e re vie w fa c tua l findings unde rly ing a c hoic e of la

w de te rm ination” for c le ar e rror. Zinse r v . Ac c ufix

Re s e arc h Inst., Inc . , 253 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th C ir. 2001). He re the fa c t s a

re undispute d, but we c onc l ude tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d

in its a pplic ation of the ne rve c e nte r te st to theundispute d fa c ts in this c a s e . H e rtz holds that a c orporation’ s princ ipa l pla c e of busine s s is ge n e ra lly its he a dqua

rte rs, whe re the t op offic e rs a

re loc ate d—

the “ c e nte r of ov e rall dire c t ion, c ontrol, a n d c oordina tion.” He rtz , 559 U.S. a

t 92-93, 95-96 (e m

p ha sis a dde d). He re , tha

t loc ation is Lewisville , Te xa s. The distric t c ourt a c knowle dge d tha t M e d-Trans’ he a d qua

rte rs a n d top c orporate offic e rs we re loc ate d in Te xa s. None the le ss, the c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the Tuc son, Ariz ona

offic e wa s the c orporate “ ne rve c e nte r,” be c a use this offic e c onduc te d e sse ntia l FAA re gula tory work e sse ntia l to M e d-Trans’ busine ss. This de c ision wa s funda

m e nta lly inc onsiste nt with the

sta nda rd in He rtz . Although the work of the Tuc s on offic e is e s se ntia l to them o st visible a spe c t of M e d -Trans’ 3c orporate a c tivitie s— c onduc t ing m e d ic a l flights, He rtz m ake s c le ar that this is not

a re a son to suppla

nt the c orporate he a dqua

rte rs a s the princ ipa l pla c e of busine ss. Se e id. at 95-96. Le wisville , Te xa s, is the c le a r “ c e nte r of ov e rall

dire c tion, c ontrol, and c oordina

t ion” of M e d-Trans’ busine ss— e ve n a c c e p ting tha t Tuc son pla

y s a n e sse ntia l role in M e d -Trans’ spra wling ope rations. Id. at 96 (e m pha sis a dde d ). Thus, Te xa s la

wa pplie s to the pa

rtie s’ dispute . RE V E RSE D.

4