Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a true conflict exists between the laws of two states, a court applying California's governmental interest analysis must apply the law of the state whose interest would be more severely impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state.
Facts:
- Kelly Kearney and Mark Levy were California residents and employees of a company that granted them stock options.
- The options could only be exercised through defendant Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (SSB).
- Kearney and Levy were directed to SSB's branch office in Atlanta, Georgia, to handle their financial matters and opened accounts there.
- While residing in California, Kearney and Levy made and received numerous telephone calls with brokers in SSB's Atlanta office concerning their personal financial affairs.
- Employees at SSB's Atlanta office tape-recorded these telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of Kearney and Levy.
- Kearney and Levy later discovered the recordings during separate legal claims against SSB regarding alleged malfeasance.
Procedural Posture:
- Kelly Kearney and Mark Levy filed a putative class action lawsuit against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (SSB) in a California trial court.
- SSB filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that its conduct was lawful under Georgia law.
- The trial court sustained SSB’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Georgia had the greater interest in having its law applied.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a conflict of laws situation, does California's statute requiring all-party consent to record confidential telephone communications apply to a Georgia-based company that records calls with its California clients without their consent, where Georgia law permits recording with only one-party consent?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C. J.
Yes, California's statute requiring all-party consent generally applies because California's interest in protecting the privacy of its residents would be more severely impaired by the application of Georgia law than Georgia's interest would be by the application of California law. The court applied its three-step governmental interest analysis. First, it found the laws conflict: California's Penal Code § 632 requires all parties to a confidential communication to consent to a recording, while Georgia law permits recording with the consent of only one party. Second, it determined a 'true conflict' exists because California has a strong interest in protecting its residents' privacy, and Georgia has a legitimate interest in having its law applied to protect businesses acting within its borders in reliance on its laws. Third, using the 'comparative impairment' analysis, the court concluded California's interests would be more severely impaired. Failing to apply California law would undermine a core privacy protection and could place California businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Conversely, Georgia's interest is less impaired because applying California law does not forbid recording; it merely requires disclosure to California clients at the outset of the call. However, to accommodate Georgia's interest in protecting past reliance on its law, the court held that while injunctive relief against future secret recordings is appropriate under California law, monetary damages for past conduct should be denied.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'comparative impairment' approach as the dispositive step in California's governmental interest analysis for choice-of-law disputes. It sets a significant precedent by extending the reach of California's protective privacy statutes to out-of-state businesses that regularly transact with California residents, emphasizing that such businesses must comply with California's stricter standards. The court's nuanced remedy—allowing future injunctive relief under California law while denying past monetary damages under Georgia law—demonstrates judicial flexibility in accommodating competing state interests and protecting parties' reasonable reliance on existing law prior to a clarifying decision.
Unlock the full brief for Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.