choice-of-law clause in Massachusetts

2017Taylor v. Eastern Connection Operating, Inc., 465 Mass. 191 , 195 n.8 (2013).

2015Moreover, the fact that TBDGI agreed to include in the Contract a choice of law clause favoring Boston Pads could count as an act of “purposeful and successful solicitation of business.” Tatro, 416 Mass. at 767 .

2015Although a choice of law provision standing alone is generally insufficient to confer jurisdiction, the above factors taken as a whole sufficiently evidenced TBDGI’s “deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 461, 482 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985).

2014It is an open question whether a foreign court’s decree enforcing a noncompete will be honored in California, whose public policy against such covenants may or may not be subject to a “trade secret exception.” Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 , 945-46 & n.4, 189 P.3d 285 (2008); Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 577-78 , 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2009); see Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 466 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 834 P.2d 1148 (1992) (California courts will enforce a choice of law clause if the chosen state has a substantial

2014It is an open question whether a foreign court’s decree enforcing a noncompete will be honored in California, whose public policy against such covenants may or may not be subject to a “trade secret exception.” Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 , 945-46 & n.4, 189 P.3d 285 (2008); Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 577-78 , 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2009); see Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 466 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 834 P.2d 1148 (1992) (California courts will enforce a choice of law clause if the chosen state has a substantial

2014It is an open question whether a foreign court’s decree enforcing a noncompete will be honored in California, whose public policy against such covenants may or may not be subject to a “trade secret exception.” Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 , 945-46 & n.4, 189 P.3d 285 (2008); Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 577-78 , 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2009); see Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 466 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 834 P.2d 1148 (1992) (California courts will enforce a choice of law clause if the chosen state has a substantial

2014It is an open question whether a foreign court’s decree enforcing a noncompete will be honored in California, whose public policy against such covenants may or may not be subject to a “trade secret exception.” Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 , 945-46 & n.4, 189 P.3d 285 (2008); Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 577-78 , 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2009); see Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 466 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 834 P.2d 1148 (1992) (California courts will enforce a choice of law clause if the chosen state has a substantial

2006Newburyport Five Cent Savings Bank v. MacDonald, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 904 (1999).

2002It is the choice of law clause dictating that Massachusetts law applies, and the holding in Hannon v. Original Gunite Aquatech Pools, Inc., 385 Mass. 813 (1982), that a claimant under Sec. 9 of c. 93A could not be forced to arbitrate such a claim even in the face of a contract with an arbitration clause, that adds the complexity.

2000When this court applies the Massachusetts summary judgment standard to this transaction, Commerce does not have a reasonable expectation of showing that under the Virginia policy as applied by this court, it does not owe Doherty its share as the excess carrier on the stacked policy. b) Doherty’s G.L.c. 93A Claim The question of whether Commerce violated G.L. 93A in its investigation of Doherty’s claim should be left for the trier of fact because Commerce maybe able to show that it did investigate the claim and did not commit an unfair or deceptive act in its investigation of Doherty’s claim. 5

2000See Droukas v. Drivers Training Academy, Inc., 375 Mass. at 156 and “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Seneca Foods Corp., 361 Mass. 441, 445 (1972) (both citing Agrashell Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Co., 344 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1965) (superseded by statute on other grounds)).

2000See Droukas v. Drivers Training Academy, Inc., 375 Mass. at 156 and “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Seneca Foods Corp., 361 Mass. 441, 445 (1972) (both citing Agrashell Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Co., 344 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1965) (superseded by statute on other grounds)).

1996Co., 407 Mass. 572 , 582 n.13 (1990), the court construed the clause in Morris as a choice-of-law clause rather than a forum selection clause. 2.

1992While due regard must be given to that policy “and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself [must be] resolved in favor of arbitration, . . . [interpreting a choice-of-law clause to make applicable state rules governing the conduct of arbitration — rules which are manifestly designed to encourage resort to the arbitral process — simply does not offend the rule of liberal construction . . . nor . . . any other policy embodied in the FAA.” Id. at 476 .

1992The court pointed out that the FAA “contains no express preemptive provision, nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration.” Id. at 477 .

1981These factors include: “(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, “(b) the relevant policies of the forum, “(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, “(d) the protection of justified expectations, “(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, “(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and “(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.” 9 Isaacson v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 325 Mass. 469 (1950), and Warfield v. Me