Pariano v. Pariano

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the multistate nature of the harm precluded a finding that the place of injury controlled the choice of law analysis
• noting that where the “alleged injuries would 17 most likely have occurred in multiple states, ‘the place of injury will not play an important role in 18 the selection of the state of applicable law”
• following 5 “our own rules of procedure” (i.e. Rule 56) rather than the anti-SLAPP timing rules
• declining to 2 apply Section 425.16(f) and finding timely anti-SLAPP motions filed one year into case 3 and after transfer of venue following filing of Rule 12(b) motions
• “Typically, ‘a federal court sitting in diversity applies the conflict-of-law rules of the 10 state in which it sits.’ However, after a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 the choice-of-law rules 11 of the transferor court apply.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).