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