Court Opinion

ID: 9797840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:30:26.888272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:44.722169
License: Public Domain

Maupin, C. J.,
with whom Becker, J., agrees,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority conclusion that the district court should apply Nevada law to this controversy when it is tried in district court, but with two exceptions. Under Motenko, the law of the forum is presumed to govern unless other non-forum factors show that another state has an overwhelming interest in the litigation.1 In an action brought in Nevada, another state has an overwhelming interest if two of the following non-forum based factors are met: (1) the conduct giving rise to the injury occurred in that other state; (2) the injury was suffered in the other state; (3) the parties have the same domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, or place of business and it is different from the forum state; and (4) the other state is the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.2
The majority correctly notes that the third and fourth factors are not implicated in this case. It also correctly notes that only one factor in favor of applying California law exists, at least as to the cases brought by the Nevada residents. However, as to the two cases initiated by the California residents, it appears that two of the Motenko factors are met. First as noted, the accident causing the injury occurred in the State of California. Second, the wrongful death damages are being suffered in California.
Thus, under our formula in Motenko, at least as to the two California plaintiffs, California does have an overwhelming interest in the application of its law to their claims.

 Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 1041-42, 921 P.2d 933, 935 (1996).

 Id.