Hudson v. Dr. Michael J. O'Connell's Pain Care Center, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a choice of law provision which stated Missouri law applied to “any dispute arising from the performance or breach” of the contract applied to some of plaintiffs claims, including misappropriation of trade secrets
• noting that ”[w]hen parties acquiesce to the application of a particular state’s law, courts need not address choice of law questions” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• concluding that claims for fraud, deceptive trade practices, and misappropriation of trade secrets were so “closely related” to the contract claim that they were covered by a choice-of-law provision, but a claim for tortious interference was not so “intertwined”
• rejecting the argument that because the court has personal jurisdiction over defendant in Minnesota that it requires the court to apply Minnesota law
• declining to “undertake a sua sponte choice of law analysis” when the parties did not dispute the issue
• finding plaintiff waived right to arbitrate by filing suit in court and seeking preliminary injunction on factual and legal issues that are intertwined with arbitrable claims in suit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).