Opinion ID: 2569835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Conflict-of-Laws

Text: {16} The Court of Appeals in this case adopted the false conflict doctrine as the initial step that a district court must undertake when making the determination about what law applies to the claims of a multi-state class. [2] Ferrell, 2007-NMCA-017, ¶ 40. Under this analysis, when the laws of the relevant states do not actually conflict, the court may avoid a conflict-of-law analysis and may apply forum law to the entire class. See Phillips, 472 U.S. at 816, 105 S.Ct. 2965 (We must first determine whether [forum] law conflicts in any material way with any other law which could apply. There can be no injury in applying [forum] law if it is not in conflict with that of any other jurisdiction connected to this suit.). If, however, the laws of the relevant states actually conflict, or if the laws of certain of the relevant states conflict, then the forum court must resolve that conflict using the choice-of-law rules contained in the forum state's conflict-of-laws doctrine. See Ferrell, 2007-NMCA-017, ¶ 40. {17} A district court's conclusion that the laws of the various states do not actually conflict is particularly important in multi-state class actions. If the law of a single state can be applied to the entire class, it is more likely that the class will meet the predominance and superiority requirements of our class action rule. The converse is true as well. If the laws of the states connected to the dispute actually conflict, and if the court's choice-of-law analysis provides that the laws of several states must apply to the class, then it is less likely that the class will meet the certification requirements.