X hits on this document

45 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

22 / 23

14

California has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from fraud and breach of contract, whether perpetrated on its citizens by foreign or domestic entities.

Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument that comityrequired the District Court to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction is misplaced. First, Ms. Ito went to the United States at Tokio Marine’s urging; exercising jurisdiction in this case does not unfairlyburden Tokio Marine, which purposefullyextended the reach of its conduct to the United States. Because Ms. Ito came to and sought medical care in the United States on Tokio Marine’s direction, the comity concern addressed in State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 421 (2003)

  • whether comity is offended when one jurisdiction punishes

conduct occurring inapplicable here.

in another jurisdiction — is simply Second, contrary to Tokio Marine’s

assertion, this lawsuit, which

case does not relate to the earlier Japanese involved only Ms. Ito’s claims relating directly

to the little

1995 accident.3 Even if the Court weight to Japan’s interest in

of Appeals gave too the litigation, that

hypothetical error in grounds for review.

balancing the Gilbert factors would not be See S. Ct. R. 10. ( “A petition for a writ of

3Tokio reached in the

Marine argues that, by its terms, the settlement Japanese litigation resolved all claims between

Ms.

Ito

and

Tokio

Marine.

Ms.

Ito

disagrees

with

that

characterization of the settlement. In approving the settlement, the Japanese court stated that a California court must determine

what,

if

any,

preclusive

effect

the

2002

settlement

would

have

on Ms. Ito’s claims against Tokio Marine that arise out insurance company’s violation of the 1996 agreement. Circuit Excerpts of Record 1-0207.

of the Ninth

Document info
Document views45
Page views45
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 09:10:03 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs256
Words5909

Comments