The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of * International Trade, sitting by designation.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official ** caption as set forth above. 09-0530-cv Dargahi v. Hymas UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

RULI NGS BY SU MMA RY ORD ER DO NOT HAVE PRE CED ENT IAL EF FEC T . C ITA TIO N T O ASU MMARY ORD ER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMIT TED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDE RAL RULE OF A PPE LLA TE P ROC EDU RE 32.1 AND TH IS COU RT ’ S L OCA L RULE 32.1.1. W HEN CIT ING A SUMMAR Y ORD ER IN A DOC UME NT FIL ED WIT H THI S C OUR T , A PAR TY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE F EDE RAL A PPE NDI X O R AN ELE CTR ONI C D ATABAS E ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUMMAR Y O RDE R ”). APA RTY CI TIN G ASU MMARY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E ACO PY OF IT ON ANY PA RTY NO T R EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 

### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 22 day of March, two thousand ten. nd 

### 5 6 PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, 

### 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

### 8 Circuit Judges , 

### 9 RICHARD K. EATON, 

### 10 Judge . * 

### 11 12 13 14 ALAIN AND CATHERINE DARGAHI, 

### 15 16 Plaintiffs-Appellants , 

### 17 18 -v.- 09-0530-cv 

### 19 20 HONDA LEASE TRUST, 

### 21 22 Defendant-Appellee, 

### 23 24 ROBERT A. HYMAS, 

### 25 26 Defendant . ** 

### 27 28By an order of December 30, 2008, the district court granted 1 appellants’ motion for a final judgment in favor of appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The purpose of Rule 54(b) is to “allow[] for the entry of a partial final judgment and thereby permit[] immediate appeal.” Geneva Pharm. Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc. , 386 F.3d 485, 495 (2d Cir. 2004). This was necessary in this case as the action involves multiple defendants, but the district court’s October 15, 2008 order pertains only to the appellee before this Court. No party contests the propriety of the district court’s December 30, 2008 order. 2 

### 1 FOR APPELLANTS: RICHARD M. STEIGMAN, Gair, Gair, Conason, 

### 2 Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz, 

### 3 New York, New York. 

### 4 5 FOR APPELLEE: ANNETTE G. HASAPIDIS, Segal McCambridge 

### 6 Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York, NY. 

### 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 

### 9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Jones, J. ). 

### 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 12 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District 

### 13 Court for the Southern District of New York be AFFIRMED . 

### 14 Appellants, Alain and Catherine Dargahi, appeal from 

### 15 the October 15, 2008 order of the United States District 

### 16 Court for the Southern District of New York (Jones, J. ), 

### 17 granting appellee Honda Lease Trust’s motion for judgment on 

### 18 the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

### 19 12(c). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 1 

### 20 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 

### 21 presented for review. 

### 22 Appellants are French citizens and domiciliaries of 

### 23 France. Appellee is a Delaware statutory trust whose3 

### 1 governing instrument states that it is created under, 

### 2 governed by, and construed according to the internal laws of 

### 3 the State of Delaware “without regard to any otherwise 

### 4 applicable principles of conflicts of laws.” Honda Lease 

### 5 Trust maintains its principal place of business in 

### 6 California and does business in many states but does not do 

### 7 business in New York. 

### 8 This litigation arises out of a collision in Manhattan 

### 9 between an individual who was driving a vehicle leased from 

### 10 the appellee and Mr. Dargahi, who was riding a bicycle. 

### 11 Appellants seek to hold Honda Lease Trust vicariously liable 

### 12 for the alleged negligence of the driver. The parties 

### 13 dispute which state’s vicarious liability law should govern 

### 14 this action. Appellants argue New York law, which would 

### 15 impose vicarious liability on appellee, applies. By 

### 16 contrast, appellee argues that New York has no interest in 

### 17 applying its law to this action and that under the laws of 

### 18 the parties’ respective domiciles, appellants cannot 

### 19 maintain a cause of action against it. 

### 20 A grant of a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) is proper 

### 21 “if, from the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to 

### 22 judgment as a matter of law.” Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc.4 

### 1 v. Int’l Union , 47 F.3d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

### 2 We review de novo a district court’s choice of law 

### 3 determination. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 

### 4 Co. , 363 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2004). 

### 5 The district court properly determined that in a 

### 6 diversity case such as this one, “federal courts apply the 

### 7 choice of law rules of the forum state, in this case, New 

### 8 York.” Gilbert v. Seton Hall Univ. , 332 F.3d 105, 109 (2d 

### 9 Cir. 2003). Vicarious liability laws are loss allocating 

### 10 rules and in determining which state’s laws apply, the locus 

### 11 of the accident “has at best a minimal interest in 

### 12 determining the right of recovery or the extent of the 

### 13 remedy” when the accident did not involve a citizen of the 

### 14 forum state. Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. , 65 N.Y.2d 

### 15 189, 198 (1985). 

### 16 Our “choice of law analysis is governed by the so

### 17 called Neumeierrules.” Lee v. Bankers Trust, Co. , 166 F.3d 

### 18 540, 545 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Neumeier v. Kuehner , 31 

### 19 N.Y.2d 121 (1972)). As the district court recognized, the 

### 20 manner in which a court should identify the domicile of a 

### 21 statutory trust is far from pellucid. We affirm because on 

### 22 any theory of the domicile of Honda Lease Trust, we conclude5 

### 1 that neither France nor any of the states in which Honda 

### 2 Lease Trust could be said to be a domiciliary would allow 

### 3 appellants to maintain a cause of action against the 

### 4 appellee. Under such circumstances, “displacing” the 

### 5 inconsistent law of the forum “advance[s] the relevant 

### 6 substantive law purposes” of the parties’ domiciliary 

### 7 states. Neumeier , 31 N.Y.2d at 129. 

### 8 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 

### 9 court is hereby AFFIRMED . 

### 10 11 FOR THE COURT: 

### 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

### 13 14 15