Opinion ID: 783831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New York Choice-of-Law Analysis

Text: 16 As [a] federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, the District Court is obligated to apply the law of the forum state in analyzing preliminary choice-of-law questions. Fieger v. Pitney Bowes Credit Corp., 251 F.3d 386, 393 (2d Cir.2001). While it is undisputed that Nackel's employment agreement contains a choice-of-law clause providing that the agreement shall be construed in accordance with New York law, the parties' contract does not automatically settle the choice-of-law question. For although, New York courts generally defer to the choice of law made by the parties to a contract ... New York law allows a court to disregard the parties' choice when `the most significant contacts' with the matter in dispute are in another state. Cargill, Inc. v. Charles Kowsky Res., Inc., 949 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir.1991); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines, 230 F.3d 549, 556 (2d Cir.2000) (New York law is clear [that] in cases involving a contract with an express choice-of-law provision ... a court is to apply the law selected in the contract as long as the state selected has sufficient contacts with the transaction.) (emphasis added). 17 While the choice of New York law would be reasonable, and hence enforceable, if Cap Gemini's principal place of business were in New York, creating significant contacts to the state, see, e.g., Woodling v. Garrett Corp., 813 F.2d 543, 552 (2d Cir.1987); Finucane v. Interior Constr. Corp., 264 A.D.2d 618, 695 N.Y.S.2d 322, 325 (1st Dep't 1999) (mem.), the record in this case merely reveals that Cap Gemini's headquarters are in New York. Without any further explanation of the extent of Cap Gemini's presence in New York, and as the District Court made no findings as to whether a real conflict exists between New York and California law, we must vacate the District Court's order and remand for further findings on the choice-of-law question. 4