Rosenthal v. Fonda
862 F.2d 1398 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's 'governmental interest' choice-of-law analysis, when two states have conflicting laws and a legitimate interest in applying them, a court will apply the law of the state whose interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state.
Facts:
- In 1968, Jane Fonda, a California resident, retained a New York law firm under an oral agreement.
- Richard Rosenthal, an attorney at the firm, became primarily responsible for Fonda's legal and business affairs.
- After the firm dissolved, Rosenthal, now a private practitioner in New York, entered into a new oral contract with Fonda in April 1972.
- The 1972 oral contract stipulated that Fonda would pay Rosenthal ten percent of all gross professional income from projects initiated during his tenure.
- Rosenthal primarily performed his services from his New York office between 1972 and 1978.
- In 1978, at Fonda's request, Rosenthal moved to California to be closer to her, though he maintained a home and office in New York.
- On May 30, 1980, Fonda terminated Rosenthal's services.
- Rosenthal sought commissions on projects that were initiated during his employment but continued to generate income after his termination.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Rosenthal filed a lawsuit against Jane Fonda in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for breach of an oral contract.
- Fonda filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that New York's statute of frauds barred Rosenthal's claim.
- The district court granted Fonda's motion, ruling that New York law controlled the dispute.
- After a separate bench trial on the issue of equitable estoppel, the trial court granted Fonda's motion for a directed verdict.
- The district court entered a final judgment in favor of Fonda.
- Rosenthal, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Fonda as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under California's 'governmental interest' choice-of-law analysis, does New York's statute of frauds, which bars the enforcement of an oral contract for commissions that could be paid out for more than one year, apply to a dispute between a California resident and her former New York-based attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Canby, Circuit Judge
Yes. Under California's choice-of-law rules, New York's statute of frauds applies and bars the oral contract because New York's governmental interest would be more impaired than California's if its law were not applied. The court applied California's three-step governmental interest analysis. First, the laws of California and New York differ: California's statute of frauds would not bar the contract because it could be terminated within a year, while New York's would bar it because the commission payments could continue indefinitely, dependent on third parties. Second, a 'true conflict' exists because both states have a legitimate interest in having their law applied; California has an interest in enforcing contracts for its residents, and New York has a strong, expressed interest in protecting non-residents, like Fonda, who employ New York professionals in order to maintain its status as a commercial center. Third, under the 'comparative impairment' analysis, New York's interest is greater. New York's policy is to protect those who transact business within its borders, while California's interest in applying its more permissive law to protect a New York plaintiff against a California defendant is weaker, especially since New York law would not protect him. Furthermore, the parties' reasonable expectations pointed to New York law, as Rosenthal was a New York lawyer and performed the majority of the contract in New York.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of California's 'governmental interest' approach to resolving conflicts of law, moving beyond a simple 'contacts' counting method. The decision emphasizes that courts must analyze the underlying purposes and policies of the conflicting laws to determine which state has a stronger interest in having its law applied. The ruling establishes that a forum state may subordinate its own law when a foreign state has a compelling protective policy (like encouraging commerce by protecting non-residents) and when the parties' reasonable expectations align with the application of that foreign law. This reinforces the principle that choice-of-law analysis is a qualitative, policy-driven inquiry, not a mechanical one.
Unlock the full brief for Rosenthal v. Fonda