Opinion ID: 867561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ledesma v. Jack Stewart Produce, Inc., 816 F.2d 482 (9th Cir.1987)

Text: ¶ 12 This diversity action began when a van occupied by California residents was struck on an Arizona highway by a truck owned by an Oklahoma company and operated by an Arkansas driver. The district court dismissed, based on California's limitations period, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, saying, California has adopted a `governmental interest' approach to resolve choice-of-law problems. Ledesma v. Jack Stewart Produce, Inc., 816 F.2d 482, 484 (9th Cir.1987). In analyzing the interests of California and Arizona, the court reached several conclusions. California's interest in protecting its courts from stale claims is at least equally balanced by its interest in allowing its residents to recover for injuries sustained in a state that would recognize their claim as timely. Id. at 485. Further, because the Arizona legislature has set a two-year limitations period, Arizona's interest would be significantly impaired by a failure to apply its statute of limitations. Id. at 486. Quoting the Supreme Court of California, the Ninth Circuit held that one of the primary purposes of a state in creating a cause of action... is to deter the kind of conduct within its borders which wrongfully [causes injury]. Id. (quoting Hurtado v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 574, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666, 672 (1974)). ¶ 13 Before finally concluding that the Arizona statute of limitations should apply, the Ninth Circuit said, Insofar as drivers tend to be more careful when their chances of incurring liability are more substantial, Arizona does have an interest in ensuring that its statute of limitations is applied in any case that arises from accidents occurring within its state borders.  Id. (emphasis added). Further, the court noted that Arizona's legitimate government policy would be impaired by a failure to allow the cause of action that it has established for personal injury claims. Id. While in Ledesma, unlike the instant case, there were no California defendants, the court's holdings on deterrence of in-state conduct obtain no matter where the defendants reside.