San Francisco, CA commercial litigation attorney Edward Hugo talks about a memorable choice of law case. He explains that he is a native Californian, specifically from San Francisco, and finds the state fascinating due to its incredible diversity. However, he notes that this diversity contributes to California’s reputation among some as a “judicial hellhole,” a venue where defendants are often reluctant to try cases. Because plaintiffs have the ability to choose the point of filing, many cases in California involve products or activities that never actually occurred in the state. In some instances, the relevant product use or exposure even took place in other countries.

He cites Sabettian v. Exxon as an example. The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, but the plaintiff, Mr. Sabettian, had been exposed to asbestos while working at the Avidin Refinery in Iran. His team successfully persuaded the court to apply Iranian law rather than California law, which was crucial due to significant differences in the legal framework. Under Iranian law, punitive damages are not permitted, strict product liability does not exist, and liability is several only, rather than joint and several. Applying Iranian law dramatically reduced the potential value of the plaintiff’s case.