r^. , , f^- ^ ^:^lf^dtR^^ ^1 ^ ; ^`^s^",^^ .'^^^
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Case No:
ENQTJI:P T:ECH1`+1OI1OGIES GROUP INCORPORATED, On Appeal from the Appellant, . Greene County • Court of Appeals, V. Second Appellate District
TYCON TECHNOGLASS S.r.l., and • Court of Appeals ROI313INS & MYERS, INC., • Case No. 2011-CA-39
Appeliees.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT, ENQUIP TECHNOLOGIES G-ROUP INCORPORATED
John B. Pinney (00 18173) (Counsel of Record) Kara A. Czanik (0075165) Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP 1900 Fiftli Third Center; 511 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-621-6464 I'`,o t^6 €`) Fax 513-651-3836 J pinney^^graydon.c6m CLERK OF C^UIRT kczanik@gr aydon.com SUPREME OURT'M'_ Coutisel for Appellant, EnQuip Technologies Group Incorporated
Christine M. Haaker (0063225) Matthew E. Liebson (0071544) Terry W. Posey, Jr. (0078292) Thompson Hine LLP Thornpson Hine LLP 3900 Key Center Austin Landing I 3900 Key Center 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44114 Dayton, OI-[ 45342 216-566-5500 937-443-6822 Fax 216-566-5800 Fax 937-443-6635 matthew.liebson a;thompsonhine.com chri stine. haaker,ci,thompsonhine. com terry.po sey@thompsonhine. c om Counsel for Appellees, Tycon 'Teclmo,glass S.r.l. and Robbins & Myers, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa-e I. Explanation of Why this Case is a Case of Public or Great General Interest..... 1
II. Statement of the Case and Facts ...... ,....>...... ,...... 4
III. Argument_in Support of Propositions of Law ...... 6
Proposition of Law No. l-- R.C. 1335.11(C) establishes a statutory cause of action for unpaid commissions by a terminated sales representative against a principal that is supplemental to any cause of action for breach of contract...... 6
Proposition of Law No. 2 - An Ohio court that has personal jurisdiction over the principal must apply R.C. 1335.11 to a claim by a terniinated sales representative for unpaid commissions brought under that statute even where the parties' agreement provides that the contract is governed by the law of another state...... 9
Frooosition of Law No. 3 - The violation of a statutory mandate under Ohio law constitutes an "illegal act" that satisfies the second prong of the Belvedere%Dombroski test and subjects a parent corporation causing such violation to potential liability as its subsidiary's alter ego ...... 11
Proposition of Law No. 4 - When a parent corporation directly participates in its subsidiary's violation of a statute resulting in plaintiff s injury, the parent may be held jointly directly liable, along with the subsidiary, for the plaintiffs damages caused by its being a "direct participant" in the subsidiary's wrongful act ...... 12
Proposition of Law No. 5- Whether a forum selection clause is permissive or mandatory should be determined according to the plain meaning of its language pursuant to the rules and procedures applicable in the court before which the case is pendi ng...... 13
Proposition of Law No. 6 - Ohio public policy under R.C. 1335.11(p)(3) prohibits enforcement of a mandatory forum clause in a contract between a sales representative and a principal where the designated coYart is outside of Ohio...... 15
IV. Conclusion ...... 15
Certificate of Service ...... , ...... 16
Appendix Appx. Page Opinion of Greene County Court of Appeals (Dec. 28, 2012)...... 1 Final Entry of Greene Countv Court of Appeals (Dec. 28, 2012)...... 32 Decision and Entry of Greene County Court of Appeals (July 18, 2013) ...... 35 Memorandum and Order of Greene County Common Pleas Court (Feb. 17, 2009)... 48 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (April 23, 2009)...... 127 Order on Reconsideration of Greene County Common Pleas Court (Mar. 12, 2010)..153 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT, ENQUIP TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INCORPORATED
1. Explanation of Why This Case Is a Case of Public or Great General Interest.
EnQuip Technologies Group Incorporated ("EnQuip") brings three issues embodied in
six propositions of law to this Court. Each involves a question of first impression that represents
a matter of public or great general interest. The lack of definitive Ohio precedent on each issue
is what largely has led to over five years ofintense litigation in this case without a final result.
The first issue involves the interpretation of R.C. 1335.11 (referred to herein as the"GQhio
Sales Representative Protection Act" or the "Act") which creates a statutory cause ofaetion for
commissioned sales representatives who are terminated and then not paid the commissions owed
by their principal. This Court has never taken a case involving the Act. The Act was originally
enacted in 1988 to insure that terminated sales representatives would actually receive what was
owed. The Act was then revised in 1999 to eliminate references to the parties' residency in order
to comply with the requirements of the commerce clause in the United States Constitution.
Both the trial court and the appellate court below seriously misconstrued the Act by
failing to give effect to its division (F)(2), a provision that voids application of any other state's
law to claims brought under the Act. The court of appeals' Opinion also refused to recognize the
Act's supplemental statutory cause of action at division (C) requiring "a principal to pay the sales representative all commissions due the sales representative" after termination. Instead of recognizing a cause of action under division (C), the court of appeals concluded that the purpose of the statute was only to create a claim, per division (D).. for exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs, against principals who willfully failed to pay the commissions due. These misinterpretations of the Act alone justify review of this case by the Supreme Court.
The second important question of first impression in this appeal addresses whether a
- 1 - parent corporation can be held liable for the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary based on the
subsidiary's violation of an express statutory duty under either an alter ego theory or a "direct
participant" liability theory. flere, based on overwhelming evidence, the jury at trial specifically
found under proper instructions that defendant-appellee Robbins & Myers, Inc. ("R&M") was
the alter ego of its subsidiary, defendant-appellee Tycon 'Technoglass S.H. ("TyTg"). By that
finding, the jury necessarily had to conclude that TyTg "had no separate mind, will, or existence
of its own" and that EnQuip's damages resulted "from such control" being exercised by R&M.,
By granting R&M's post-trial JNOV motion, the trial court threw out EnQuip's verdict
against R&M. In doing so, the trial court concluded that TyTg's violation of the directive under
the Italian Civil Code that requires principals to pay the commissions owed to their sales agents
was not a sufficient "illegal act" to meet the second prong of the BelvederelDombroski test.
In rejecting EnQuip's R.C. 1335.11 claim altogether, both the trial court and the appeals
court never reached the issue of whether TyTg's non-payment of commissions in violation of the
Ohio Act was an "illegal act" that satisfied the second prong of the Belvederre/Dornbroski alter
ego test. Similarly, neither the trial court nor the court of appeals reached the merits of EnQuip's
"direct participant" theory of liability, which if adopted in Ohio would also support R&M's joint liability with TvTg.2 Nonetheless, the jury's findings on the first and third prongs of the i The jury was properly instructed regarding the three essential elements for alter ego liability under the 13elvederE!Dornbroski test: "(1) R&M exercised such control that was so complete that Tvcon had no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) R&M's control over Tycon was exercised in such a manner as to comnlit an illegal act against EnQuip; and (3) EnQuip incurred a loss that resulted from such control or similar illegal act." Belvedere Condo. ZlnitOtit'netas' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc. 67 Ohio St. 3d 274, 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993), and Dombroski v. II'ellpoint, Inc., 119 Ohio St. 3d 506, 2008-Ohio-4827, 895 N.E.2d 538. 2'I'he court of appeals erroneously stated that EnQuip had apparently "dropped" its direct participant theory of liability against R&M (July 18, 2013 Decision, fn. 6). That conclusion is neither accurate nor supported by the record. In fact, EnQuip specifically argued for application of the "direct participant" theory in its Memorandum of Relevant Law, pp. 6-7, filed on March 2, (Continued) -2- Beli'eder-e/17nmbr^oski test support fully R&M's liability under EnQuip's direct participant
theory. The issue of R&M's liability as either alter ego or as direct participant is also certainly
worthy of review by this Court, especially where, as here, R&M's liability relates importantly to
the nexus between EnQuip's claims and Ohio and to whether RC. 1335.11 should apply at all.
Finally, the third distinct matter of first impression presented on this appeal is how an
Ohio court should interpret a forum selection clause to determine whether a specified forum is
exclusive and thus mandatory or whether it is merely permissive. The clause in the parties'
contract in this case reads: "[t]heiaw court in Venice will be competent for any disputes." The
trial court held that this unambiguous language, written in English, was permissive and thus non-
mandatory and, as such, did not vest exclusive jurisdiction with the Italian court to decide the
case. The court of appeals, however, reversed and held that a European Union regulation should
be read into the language used in the clause and, by doing so, interpreted the forum clause so as
to require all of EnQuip's claims to be brought exclusively before the Italian court.
American courts, including the courts of Ohio, are increasingly hearing cases involving
international disputes with contracts having forum selection provisions. 'I'he applicable rules for
interpretation of forum clauses have increasingly become more murky and subject to intense
debate, especially as to whether the question should be deemed procedural or substantive.
Recognizing that the forum issue was critical, the trial court wrote two opinions addressing it, one 78 pages and another 27 pages. The court of appeals then devoted another 19 pages to the forum issue in its Opinion. There being no Ohio precedent, this issue alone is of sufficient general interest to justify the Court taking this case.
2011, with its Pretrial Statement n.ine days before trial. Moreover, the trial court's initial judgment entry, per the verdict, holding R&M liable as TyTg's alter ego mooted EnQuip's need to argue its alternative direct participant liability theory for holding R&M liable in its post-trial submissions in the trial court.
-3- This is a case brought by a small American sales representative that for almost twenty
years was TyTg's sole North American salcs representative for large industrial equipment.
Significantly, TyTg was at all relevant times a subsidiary of a Dayton-based parent, R&M, a
global company listed on the New York Stock Exchange.3 Even though the forum clause
nowher.e says that the Venice court is the exclusive forum, EnQuip's substantial Ohio judgment
has now been annulled by the appeals court after five years of intense litigation. In the interests
of j tistice, this Court should take this case and use it to provide well-defined standards for
interpreting forum selection provisions to avoid disastrous, failed litigations like that here.
II. Statement of the Case and Facts
After being terininated as a commissioned sales representative for TyTg on June 28,
2007, EnQuip commenced this action on June 27, 2008, in Montgomery County against TyTg,
R&M and others to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars it claimed due on its contract, for an
accounting and for violation of R.C. 1335.11 and the remedies thereunder. By agreement, the
case was transferred to Greene County in December 2008. This case now comes before this
Court after five interlocutory appeals, a ten-day jury trial, a final judgment entered on June 29,
2011 and an appeal and cross-appeal that were not finally resolved until July 18, 2013.
At an early stage, the parties had filed a number of procedural motions, including TyTg's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens and both sides' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings relating to the forum clause in the parties' contract.
On February 17, 2009, the trial court decided that the forum clause was not mandatory and did not require EnQuip to proceed exclusively with its claims against TyTg and R&M in. Italy. That
3 R&M moved its headquarters out of Ohio to Texas in August 2011 and thereafter was acquired by another public company in early 2013, although R&M, which is an Ohio corporation, today remains in existence as a subsidiary of its acquirer, National Oilwell Varco, Inc.
-4- order being interlocutory, TyTg could not then appeal.
After requesting and receiving additional jurisdictional evidence, the trial court on April
23, 2009, also denied TvTg's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that
TyTg, represented by EnQuip and its predecessor, had since 1990 sold equipment having a total
value of over $2 million to Ohio customers. In the same order, the trial court also denied TyTg's
request for dismissal for forum non conveniens. Signiticantly, TyTg did not assign as error in its
appeal the trial court's decision on either personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens. Ilence,
the trial court's decision on those matters is now final and has become the law of the case.
On March 11, 2011, a ten-day trial began resulting in initial judgment being entered for
EnQuip and against both TyTg and R&M, as TyTg's alter ego, in the amount of $585,538, plus
interest. However, the trial court later granted R&M's motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict to vacate the alter ego finding. Consequently, the trial court's final judgment, entered
three years and two days after EnQuip's complaint had been filed, ran against only TyTg.
Insofar as relevant here, EnQuip appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing its
claim under R.C. 1335.11 and it's order granting the JNOV vacating its judgment against R&M
as TyTg's alter ego. TyTg thereafter cross-appealed from the trial court's refusal to dismiss the
case on the basis of the forum clause. Taking another 17 months, the court of appeals finally
decided the appeals on December 28, 2012. In its Opinion, the court denied EnQuip's appeal in its entirety and sustained TyTg's cross-appeal on the forum issue. The effect of this decision was to reverse EnQuip's judgment against TyTg4 and require that it pursue its claims only in
4 Concluding that the parties must have intended for the Venetian court to be exclusive, the court of appeals then summed-up on the forum issue with the following confusing passage: ... We conclude that the contract requires the action be pursued in an Italian court. It is possible that the Italian. court would conclude that the Court of Venice does not have exclusive jurisdiction, based on jurisdictional rules other than those (Contunued) -5- Italy, which has the practical effect of leaving EnQuip without any remedy at all.5 EnQuip
timely filed for reconsideration on the applicability of R.C. 1335.11 but that motion was
ultinlatelv denied by the court of appeals in an eleven-page Decision rendered on July 18, 2013.
III. Argument in Support of Propositions of Law.
Proposition of Law No. 1- R.C. 1335.11(C) establishes a statutory cause of action for unpaid commissions by a terminated sales representative against a principal that is supplemental to any cause of action for breach of contract.
The court of appeals seriously misconstrued R.C. 1335.11 by rejecting EnQuip's
statutory claim for recovery of the commissions TyTg owed it. Initially, the court suggested that
it thought, albeit erroneously, that EnQuip's complaint had not asserted any claim under the Act
other than a claim for exemplary damages under division (D),6 However, it is evident that the
in Article 23 and Article 17 [of the E.U. Reg. and Brussels Convention, respectively]. I'he issue here concerns only what EnQuip and TyTg intended the clause to mean. We need not, and can not, determine whether the Court of Venice actually does have exclusive jurisdiction. (Slip Opinion at 20.) By refusing to "determine whether the Court of Venice actually does have exclusive jurisdiction," the court of appeals seems to be saying that European Union law may not be the same as "Italian law." The court seems also to suggest itmakes no difference whether the Italian court would actually take up EnQip's case. As was recognized by the trial court, E.U. Council Regulation 44f2001, the E.U. law driving the appeals court's decision, primarily serves to set procedural rules for allocating litigation among European courts. While that regulation may well be European tlnion law, it is clearly not "Italian law" as such. By basing its reversal of the trial court's judgment on its conclusion that EnQuip must have intended to make the Venetian court exclusive, the court of appeals actually had to presume that EnQuip knew (or should have known) at the time of contracting that the forum clause's plain English language referring to an Italian court's "competence" meant under Italian law that any dispute had to be litigated in Italy. Not only was the Second District decision wrong, its reasoning is seriously flawed. s The court of appeals concluded its Opinion with the following observation: We are keenly aware that much time, effort, and money of the parties, and the trial court, appear to have been needlessly expended. In is unfortunate in this case that Ohio law did not allow TyTg to obtain appellate review of the forum- selection matter until now. Nevertheless, quell che e fatto e fatto. (fn. "What's done is done") 6 For reasons that are not clear, the court of appeals in both its original Opinion issued on I3ecembex28; 2012 and in its Decision on reconsideration issued on July 1$,2013 misconstrued what EnQuip was claiming in Count Four of its third amended complaint. As explained in (Continued) -6- real reason for its rejecting EnQuip's R.C. 1335.11 claim appears at footnote three in the court of
appeals' Decision overruling EnQuip's motion for reconsideration.'
s Our decision [i.e., the original Opinion] strongly suggests that we do not think a cause of action for breach of contract exists under division (C). We said that "[s]ection 1335.11 deals narrowwly with the availability of exemplary damages for unpaid commissiotrs in dealings between a principal and a sales representative." (Citations omitted.) EnQuip, 2012-Ohio-6181, at 1^44. "To that end," we said, "R.C. 1335.11 allows a sales representative to obtain exeznplary damages of up to `three times the amount of commissions owed' plus attorney fees and costs." ...
Initially, EnQuip notes that it has never claimed that division (C) creates a cause of action. for
breach of contract. Rather, EnQuip does claim that division (C) creates a statutory cause of
action for recovery of unpaid commissions enforceable under Ohio law in Ohio courts and that
cause of action is supplemental to any breach of contract cause of action that a sales
representative may have against the principal under the law specified in the underlying contract.
Interpreting a similar provision in the Illinois Sales Representative Act, 820 Ill.Ann.Stat.,
Section 120/2, the Seventh Circuit in AAA Sales & Assoc., Inc. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., 550 F.3d. 605,
609 (2008), held that an independent cause of action for unpaid commissions existed under the
greater detail at footnote 7 below, the appeals court made it clear that it thought that EnQuip's pleadings had not asserted any statutory claim to recover unpaid commissions and that EnQuip's claim in its fourth count was limited to only a claim for exemplary damages plus fees and costs under division (D). This misreading of EnQuip's complaint along with the appeals court's conclusion that no statutory cause of action was made utider division (C) led directly to its erroneous rejection and dismissal of EnQuip's claims under the Act. ' The court of appeals erroneously believed that EnQuip's complaint did not assert a statutory claim for recovery of unpaid commissions under the Act's division (C). In discussing EnQuip's R.C. 1335.11 claim, the appeals court (at pp. 3-5 of its July 18, 2013 Decision) even examined the gramniar of ^,(57 of EnQuip's Third Amended Complaint to suggest that EnQuip's wording sought only exemplary damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Act and not unpaid commissions. Although the court did refer to the complaint's ^154 in a footnote (tlie paragraph that incorporated by reference all prior allegations), the court nonetheless ignored those earlier allegations, especially those in Count One based on EnQuip's breach of contract claim that listed the elements of EnQuip's statutory claim for unpaid commissions against both TyTg and R&M. Fairly read, all of the elements for pleading a statutory claim for the recovery of unpaid commissions under R.C. 1335.11(C) are contained in EnQuip's fourth count, and such claim does not say or imply that it is limited to being for only exemplary damages under division (D).
7- that act. In its opinion, the court described the relationship between the statutory claim and the
breach of contract claim as being "parasitic" to one another. The court proceeded to reverse the
district court's summary judgment in favor of the principal because it held there was a genuine
issue of fact on whether there were unpaid commissions due on the parties' underlying contract.
The same is true under the Ohio Act. Like Illinois, the amount of commissions due under
division (C) in Ohio is the same amount as would be due under the parties' contract.
The Second District also failed to recognize that division (G) of the Ohio Act expressly
provides that the remedies provided for under the Act are supplemental to "any other or
additional right or remedy available to a sales representative and [do not] preclude[] a sales
representative from seeking to recover in one action on all claims against the principal." Such
other claims obviously would include the sales representative's breach of contract claim based
on the principal's failure to pay the commissions it owed at termination.
It is equally clear that a sales representative may bring an independent, stand-alone claim
for unpaid commissions pursuant to division (C) of the Act against a principal and that such
claim need not be joined with a breach of contract claim. Of course, proving the statutory cause
of action requires proof of the unpaid commissions due under the parties' contract. Nonetheless,
recognition of a supplemental statutory cause of action is critical here if EnQuip's contract claim
were to be held subject to a mandatory forum selection clause because under division (F)(3) such a forum clause cannot be enforced to bar an Ohio court from hearing such a claim.
In all versions of its complaint and also in its motion for partial summary judgment (filed
May 7, 2010) and its pretrial statement (filed March 2, 2011, or just before the start of the trial),
EnQuip made periectly clear that it was seeking the recovery of unpaid commissions under the
Act's division (C). For example, in its Pretrial Statement (at page 4), EnQuip made absolutely
-8- clear that it was making a statutory claim for commissions by stating: "EnQuip asserts statutory
claims against 'I'yTg, R&M and Pfaudler for failure to pay commissions that were due (and
would later become due) when the Agreement between EnQuip and TyTg was terminated." In
the same paragraph, EnQuip added that it "also seeks an aNvard of exemplary damages and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Act."
To the extent that the court of appeals based its rejection of EnQuip's appeal because it
thought that EnQuip had not asserted a statutory claim for unpaid commissions in addition to its
breach of contract claim, the court was obviously mistaken. Regrettably, this mistake appears to
have led directly to that court's rejection of EnQuip's R.C. 1335.11 claim for commissions.
Recognition of this supplemental statutory remedy under division (C) is also significant
for another important reason. The last sentence in division (D) of the Act provides for the
recovery of attorneys' fees and court costs by the "prevailing party in an action brought under
this section." The General Assembly's use of the word "section" and not "division" can only
mean that prevailing on a claim for unpaid commissions alone is sufficient to be the "prevailing
party" for purposes of allowing recovery of attorney's fees and court costsa Consequently, a
sales representative becomes entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs under the Act without
having to prove entitlement to exemplary damages. This Court accordingly should correct the
court of appeals' error by taking this case and ruling that division (C) of the Act does create a
statutoly cause of action for terminated sales representatives to recover unpaid commissions.
Proposition of Law No. 2- An Ohio court that has personal jurisdiction over the principal must apply R.C. 1335.11 to a claim by a terminated sales representative for unpaid commissions brought under that statute even where the parties' agreement provides that the contract is governed by the law of another state.
To protect sales representatives from unfair terms, the Act's division (F) declares "void" any contract provision making "the contract subject to the laws of another state" or limiting the
-9- right of the sales representative to initiate litigation . . . in this state." Although the parties'
Agency Agreement in this case specifies application of Italian law, this case is fundamentally no
different than if the contract had specified Kentucky or New York law.
For a sales representative making a claim under the Act, the particular state's law
specified in the contract is immaterial because under division (F) an Ohio court must still apply
the Act so long as the principal is subject to personal jurisdiction in the state. Notwithstanding
the statute's express direction, both the trial court and the court of appeals ignored division (F)(2)
of the statute by holding R.C. 1335.11 inapplicable to EnQuip's claims, albeit with each applying
a different rationale. Additionallv, even thougli the court of appeals recognized in both its
original Opiriion (p. 23) and in its Decision on reconsideration (p. 6) that division (F) voids
contractual choice of law provisions and forum selection clauses, the court in the end refused to
applv and enforce division (F)(2) and (3) by barring EnQuip from even bringing its claim for
unpaid commissions in Ohio under both its contract and the Act.
By its granting the directed verdict dismissing EnQuip's Count Four, the trial court
further held that the Italian choice of law provision barred all claims under the Act. In affirming, the appeals court decided to apply the traditional "most significant relationship" analysis under the Sections 145 and 188 of the Restatement 2d, Conflicts of Law (197 1) and, by doing so, found that R.C. 1335.11 should not apply because, according its decision, "Ohio bears no relationship to the parties and little relationship to the claim." Although ignoring (for now) the fact that the jury had found Ohio-based R&M to be TyTg's alter ego, the court of appeals erred in this regard because it instead should have applied §6(1) of the Restatement for its choice of law analysis.
Restatement §6(i) requires courts to follow "a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law." For claims under the Act, division (F), especially at sub-parts (2) and (3), is such
-10- a directive in that it expressly voids both application of the law of any other state and imposition
of any non-Ohio forum. 'I'aken as a whole, the legislative intent is clear which was to mandate
that Ohio courts hear sales representatives' claims under the Act even where the parties'
underlying contract provides for another state's law and/or a forum outside of Ohio. Any other
reading of R.C. 1335.11(F) cannot be squared with the plain meaning of the statute's language.
Additionally, division (C)'s creation of a supplemental statutory claim for the actual
commissions due under the parties' contract fully complements the statutory scheme by allowing
the sales representative to recover unpaid commissions without necessarily having to sue under
the contract itself. That means EnQuip could have brought its action under the Act without
necessarilv having to join with it a breach of contact claim. Hence, even if the appeals court was
correct in requiring that EnQuip's contact claim be heard in Italy, EnQuip's R.C. 1335.11 claim
should nonetheless have been allowed to go forward in Ohio, per division (F)(3) of the Act.
Further, had the trial court allowed its statutory claim under division (C) to be tried, EnQuip
likely would have recovered all of the commissions the jury awarded to it for breach of contract.
Fronosition of Law No. 3 - The violation of a statutory mandate under Ohio law constitutes an "illegal act" that satisfies the second prong of the Belvedere/Domhr-oski test and subjects a parent corporation causing such violation to potential liability as its subsidiary's alter ego.
The jury at trial found that R&M was TyTg's alter ego and consequently held R&M jointly liable with TyTg on EnQuip's breach of contract claim. However, the trial court granted
R&M's .TNOV motion, throwing out the judgment it had initially entered against R&M. In so ruling, the trial court concluded that a violation of the Italian Civil Code's requirement that the principal pay was insufficient to constitute an "illegal act" under the BeZvedare/Dombr•oski test.
Having refused to allow EnQuip's R.C. 1335.11 claim, the trial court never had to reach the issue of whether TyTg's failure to pay the commissions due EnQuip in violation of division (C) of the
-11- Act was a sufficient "illegal act" to satisfy the second prong of the BelvedereiDombroski test.
This issue is of great importance because the jury's finding that Ohio-based R&M was
TyTg's alter ego means that R&M not only was found to be as a practical matter the same entity
as TyTg but also was found to be responsible for having caused TyTg not to pay the
commissions due EnQuip. The point is that, because R&M is TyTg's alter ego, R&M should be
viewed as being the "principal" or "co-principal" for purposes of EnQuip's claim under the Act.
8 hurther, this also means that under traditional choice of law analysis, Ohio is the place where
both the principal is located and the wrong giving rise to EnQuip's claims actually occurred.9
Proposition of Law nTo. 4 - When a parent corporation directly participates in its subsidiary's violation of a statute resulting in plaintift7s injury, the parent may be held jointly directly liable, along with the subsidiary, for the plaintiff s damages caused by its being a "direct participant" in the subsidiary's wrongful act.
As an alternative theory to its claim that R&M is liable as TyTg's alter ego, EnQuip has
steadfastly maintained the R&M should also be held jointly liable on EnQuip's claims under
R.C. 1335.11 as a "direct participant" with TyTg, its subsidiary, in both EnQuip's termination
and TyT'g's non-payment of the commissions owed to EnQuip after termination. As noted in
footnote 1 above, the jury necessarily had to find as part of its alter ego verdict, per the trial court's instructions, that R&M had directed TyTg to not pay the commissions owed to EnQuip.
"Direct participant" liability is grounded on the conduct of a parent corporation where the parent exercises its control over a subsidiary so as to cause the subsidiaiy to take, or not take, some action that violates a clear legal duty to the plaintitf and causes injury or damage. The violation of duty can arise either in tort or under a statute. In this case, by its alter ego finding,
What troubled the court of appeals was its myopic view that this case was one between a EnQuip, a Florida company, and Italian TyTg, when it was actually between EnQuip and R&M. 9 While EnQuip disputes the proposition that its being a Florida company makes any difference regarding its ability to sue under the Ohio Act, EnQuip had originally sued R&M in Florida but that suit was dismissed after R&M denied that the Florida court has persona.l jurisdiction over it.
-12- the jury already has found that R&M directed TyI'g to not pay EnQuip the commissions owed in
violation of its statutory duty to pay under R.C. 1335.11(C).i4 Given the jury's specific findings
here, this is an ideal case for this Court to address direct participant liability doctrine in Ohio. "
Like the alter ego doctrine, a parent corporation's direct participation in the wrongful
conduct of its subsidiary has commonly also had relevance to jurisdictional issues, especially
where, as here, the parent or subsidiary is subject to jurisdiction but the other is not or might not
be. As a direct participant, R&M itself committed a wrongful act in Ohio that caused EnQuip's
injury. Accordingly, if the direct participant basis for liability of a corporate parent is recognized
in Ohio, the contention that Ohio lacks a sufficient nexus completely evaporates.
Pronosition of L,aw No, 5 - Whether a forum selection clause is pen-nissive or mandatory should be determined according to the plain meaning of its language pursuant to the rules and procedures applicable in the court before whzch the case is pending.
Rather than applying the "plain meaning" of the language used by the parties in their
t° Although the direct participant doctrine has been recognized for over eighty years, its mdern application stems mainly from the environmental case of United States v. Bestfbods, 524 U.S. 51, 69, 118 S.Ct. 1876, 141 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the corporate parent was jointly and severally liable for environnlental clean-up costs where the parent had directly participated in causing its subsidiary to violate federal environmental laws. Since Bestfoods, the doctrine has also been applied for state-law claims; e.g. Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224111. 2d 274, 864 N.E.2d 227 (2007) (personal representatives for workers killed as a result of safety violations at subsidiary's refinery could recover directly from parent corporation); and Roos v. KFS BI9, Inc., 280 Neb. 930, 799 N.W. 2d 43 (2010) (parent liable as direct participant in fraud). See also, Com'r afl7eBt: Environ. Mgt. v. RLG Inc., 755 N.E.2d 556, 563 (Ind. 2001) (corporate officer personally liable for civil penalties under "r-esponsible corporate officer doctrine"); Esmark v. iVat'l Labor Relations Bcl, 887 F.2d 739 (7t' Cir. 1987) (parent corporation liable for labor law violations); and W. Fletcher, C,t>cloBedia of the Lczw qf C'of porations, §4878 (1999). The direct participant theory of corporate liability is different from the alter ego or veil piercing theory beeauseit recognizes the existence of a direct claim by an injured party directly against a corporate parent for a specific wrongful act committed by the parent that caused the plaintiff's injury. For alter ego liability to be shown, the plaintiff must show that the subsidiary in effect is the saine indistinguishable entity as the parent. In contrast, the plaintiff need only show that the parent's actions proximately caused the injury in the specific instance for the parent to be held liable to the plaintiff as a direct participant.
-13- contract, the court of appeals in its Opinion undertook a convoluted analysis to attempt to ordain
the intent of the parties as to the meaning of the contract's forum clause. That clause, if given its
ordinary meaning; does not say (or even imply) that the Venetian court is to be the exclusive or
mandatory forum but it only says that the court is a "competent" court to hear "all disputes." A
"competent" court is a court having jurisdiction. Black's Law Dictionary (9" Ed.2009).
However, the court of appeals ignored both by not applying the plain meaning of the provision's
actual language nor using the ordinary procedures that Ohio courts apply to construing contracts.
The only prior case in Ohio dealing with the permissive/exclusive distinction in a forum
clause is EI UK Holdings, Inc. v. Cinergy UK, Inc., 9Yh Dist. Summit No. 22326, 2005-Ohio-
1271. Citing K&V Scientific Co.. Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschqfi, 314
F.3d. 494 (10tih Cir. 2002), the lelinthDistrict in El LrK applied the majority rule that application
of a forum clause is a matter of procedure and that to be exclusive the clause must clearly say so.
"I'raditionally, courts almost universally have viewed forum selection clauses as
presenting a procedural question to be decided on the basis of the rules and procedures
applicable in the court before which the case is pending (referred to as the "lex fori"). Following this approach, this Court in Masiongale Elec.-Mech., Inc, v. Construction One, Inc., 102 Ohio St.
3d 1, ¶19, 2004-Ohio-1748, 806 N.r'.2d 148, decided that a forum clause in a contract is procedural in nature, not substantive. This is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Steu^art Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22
(1988), in which the court held that federal courts in diversity cases must determine whether to enforce a forum clause as a matter of federal procedure under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) and may not apply any otherwise applicable state law rules that would require a different outcome.
Rather than applying Ohio procedural law, the Second District in this case instead
-14- cortcluded that, because the parties' contract was to be interpreted under Italian law, the court
had also to look to Italian law to interpret the forum clause. As explained above at footnote 4,
however, the appeals court ended up actually applying a European Union law, not Italian law,
and did so as if it were an Italian court bound to apply E.U. law between European litigants. In
doing so, the Second District, in a most confusing Opinion, clearly came to the wrong result.
As is apparent from that Opinion, however, there is indeed an increasing divergence of
authority on how forum selection clauses should be interpreted. Compare, Albet°naaT•le Corp. v.
Astrazeneca UK Ltd., 628 F.3d 643 (4"' Cir. 2010) with K&V Scientific, supra. This case
presents an opportunity for this Court to establish clear rules on how Ohio courts should interpret
and apply forum selection provisions in contracts.
Proasitivn of Law No. 6 - Ohio public policy under R.C. 1335.11(F)(3) prohibits enforcement of a mandatory forum clause in a contract between a sales representative and a principal where the designated court is outside of Ohio.
By enforcing the forum clause, the court of appeals failed to give any consideration to
Ohio public policy as evidenced by R.C. 13 35.11(F)(3) that declares any provision in a sales
representative's contract with a principal limiting the representative's right to bring its case in an
Ohio court to be "void." Thus, even assuming arguendo that the parties' Agency Agreement here contains a valid mandatory forum clause requiring that any disputes arising under that contract be litigated in Italy, division (F)(3) of the Act declares that Ohio public policy prohibits enforcement of such a clause.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case involves a matter of public or great general interest to the people of Ohio. The appellant accordingly requests that this Court accept jurisdiction in this case so that each of the above important issues may be reviewed on their merits.
-15- Dated: August 30, 2013 Respectfully
John B. Pinney (0018(Counsel of Record) Kara A. Czanik (007,51 6,8) Graydon Head & RAh'ey LLP 1900 Fifth Third Center, 511 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202
Counsel for Appellant EnQuip Technologies Group Incorporated
Certificate of Seraice
I hereby certify that a copy of this memorandum in support of jurisdiction was sent by ordinary U.S. mail to counsel for appellees, Christine M. Haaker and Terry W. Posey, Jr., at Thnmpson Hine LLP, Austin Landing 1, 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400, Dayton, OH 45342, and Matthew E. Liebson at Thompson Hine LLP, 2900 Key Center, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, QH44114, on August 30, 2013.
John B. Pin Counsel for
4335623.4 -16- APPENDIX
AMend'ax At?nx. Page
Opinion of Greene County Court of Appeals (Dec. 28; 201.2) ...... l
Final Entry of Green County Court of Appeals (Dec.28; 2012) ...... 32
Decision and Entry of Greene County Court of Appeals ( 3uly 18, 2013)...... , ...... 35
Memorandum and Order of Greene County Common Pleas Court (Feb. 17, 2009)...... 48
Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Apri123, 2009) ...... 127
Order on Reconsideration of Greene County Common Pleas Court (Mar. 12, 2010)...... 153 OPINION
OF
GREENE COU.NT^.'
C'OURT OF APPEALS
Rendered and Filed on December 28, 2012
Served Per App.R. 30(A) on December 31, 2012
Appx. 1 ^ yt 'F^^,^;,
tO 12 DEC 2 8 AM El• 0 7 CQ t OF A^-i^E^,^^a _
,Ra^l OF. CNVKAj
r ...... fa . t. pR ,
IN THE COURT OF RPPEAL^t S^ OF OHIO SECOND ^L .E^.{.^1.• Itl.. DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY ENQUIP TECHNOLOGIES GROUP lNCOl~tPC3RATED, at al. ° Appellate Case No. 2011 -G.
Pla.ln#iff-AppellantlCross4qapeflee , Trial Court ca.se No. 08-CV-1276 v. : {C:lvil Appeal from Gammon Pleas Court} TYCON TEGHNC1Gl„ASS S.r.), et a1,
Defendant.Appellee/Gross-ApPellan#
QPIN1QN
Rendered on ft 28th day of December, 2012.
JOHN B. PINNEY, Attya Reg. #0018773, KARA A< CZAl\EIK, Atty. Reg, #0075165, and KATHERINE M. LASHER, Atty. Reg. #0070702, Graydan Head &Ritchey Ll•".P, 1900 Fifth 1Chird Center, .511 Walnut Street,. Gtn(;«nati} Ohio 45202-3157 Attorneys for AppellantlCross-Appollee Plaintiffs i MAII"HEW E. LIEBSON, Atty. Reg. #007154, Thompson Hine LLP, 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square, Glevelandq Ohio 44114-1291 and CHRISTINE M. HAAKER, Atty. Reg. #0083225, and TF-RR'f W. POSEY, JR., Atiy. Reg. #0078292, Thorr^psqn r•irne LLP, Austtn Landing !, 10050 lnnovafon Drue, Sutt6 400, Dayton, Ohio 45342-4934 Attorneys for AppefleelCrass-Appellant Defendants
HLAI..[., J.
TEIE COURT i3B APPEALS OF C1HS7 SECCaNI3 APPELLATE DISTRICT Appx. 2 {¶ 1} This case concerns an international commercial contract between an Italian
manufacturer and its Florida sales representative. The contract contains a choice-of-law
provision and a forum-selection ctause. The choice-of-law provision provides that the
contract is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with Italian law; the forum-
selection clause provides that the Court of Venice is competent to settle any disputes.
(12) There are two central issues that we must decide. One is whether the forum-
selection clause is permissive or exclusive. The other issue is whether Ohio law applies to
determine the plaintiffs right to recover statutory exemplary damages. On the first issue,
we conclude, based on Ohio contract law and Italian jurisdictional law, that the forum-
selection clause is exclusive. And on the second issue, we conclude, under Ohio's choice-
of-law rules, that Ohio law does not apply to the exemplary-damages issue because Ohio
does not have the "most significant relationship" to the occurrences or parties in this case.
So the plaintiff may not bring a claim for exemplary damages under R.C. 1335.11.
(13) All of the claims in this case must be dismissed. The trial court's three orders
to the contrary are reversed,
1. Background
{14} This case has been before this Court twice before.' The history of this case
was set out in our first opinion, Here we give only some highlights and the facts that are
material to the issues in the present appeal.
'The issues in the first appeal concerned the joinder of parties, personal trisdiction over a counterclaim defendant, and discovery. See EnQuip Technologies ,roup, fnG. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.rl:, 2d Dist, Greene Nos. 2009 CA 42, 2009 CA 7, 201 O-4hio-28. And the issues in the second appeal concerned personal jurisdiction ver other counterclaim defendants. See EnQuip Technologies Group, Inc. v. Tycon *echnogfass, S.r.1., 2d Dist. Greene No. 2010 CA 23, 2010-Ohio-6100.
"I"HE. COURT OF APPEALS OF O1:IE0 SEC(>ND APPELLATE D1STRICT Appx. 3 o► e
{15} Plaintiff, EnQuip Technologies Group, Inc., is a Florida corporation and Florida
is where it is based. EnQuip was a commissioned sales representative for Defendant
Tycon Technoglass S.rl. (TyTg), an Italian manufacturer of glass-lined vessels, reactor
systems, and related products used in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. EnQuip
sold TyTg's products in all 50 states, Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas.
{¶ 6} EnQuip and TyTg's relationship was governed by a written contract, the
Agency Agreement. The agreement provides that TyTg will pay EnQuip a fixed commission
for each equipment sale. It further provides that EnQuip may perform post-sale service
work on the equipment. The agreement contains a choice-of-law provision providing that
the agreement is governed by and is to be interpreted in accordance with Italian law. And
the agreement contains a forum-selection clause providing that the Court of Venice, Italy,
is competent to settle any dispute between EnQuip and TyTg.
{T 7) EnQuip and TyTg's relationship soured, and in June 2007, TyTg unilaterally
terminated the Agency Agreement. In 2008, EnQuip brought an action against TyTg,2
Since TyTg's parent company was headquartered here,' the action was brought in Ohio.
EnQuip asserted five claims against TyTg: Count One, breach of contract requiring
indemnity under the Italian Civil Code; Count Two, an accounting to recover unpaid
zEnQuip also named as defendants Robbins & Myers itaiia S.r.l., Robbins & tyers, Inc., and Pfaudier Inc. Robbins & Myers Italia was an Italian company and was yTg's direct owner. Robbins & Myers, Inc., owned Robbins & Myers Italia. Robbins & Iyers, Inc., also owned Pfaudler. Robbins & Myers Italia was dismissed as a party. And EnQuip's claims against faudler were dismissed by directed verdict. EnQuip has not assigned error to either ismissal.
'Robbins & Myers, Inc., was TyTg's parent company. It has since moved its eadquarters to Texas.
THE COUIt7' ©F APPEALS OF E)HT(.? SEC+:JN13 APPELLATE D1STR3CT Appx. 4 commissions; Count Four, exemplary damages under R.C. 1335.11; Count Five, breach
of contract resulting in loss of profits from service work; and Count Six, fraud.4 Among
TyTg's asserted defenses was an improper-forum defense based on the Agency
Agreement'sforumselection clause. TyTg also asserted several contingentcounterc(airns
against EnQuip.S
(18) Both EnQuip and TyTg moved for judgment on the pleadings based on TyTg's
improper-forum defense. In a February 17, 2009 order, the trial court sustained EnQuip's
motion and overruled TyTg's. The court concluded that the forum-selection clause is
permissive rather than exclusive. In other words, the Court of Venice is a properforum but
it is not the proper forum, not the sole proper forum. The trial court concluded that it, too,
was a proper forum.'
{¶ 9} The parties agreed that Italian law applied to determine their substantive rights
and liabilities under the Agency Agreement. The trial court appointed an Italian-law expert
to advise it. The parties submitted questions (approved by the trial court) to the expert, and
the expert answered the questions in a written report.
10) The case was tried to a jury. After the parties had presented their evidence,
TyTg moved for a directed verdict on all of EnQuip's claims. The trial court sustained
TyTg's motion with respect to Count Four (exemplary damages under R.C. 1335.11) and
"EnQuip withdrew Count Three.
'TyTg also asserted contingent counterclaims against several other parties.
'Later, the trial court sua sponte moved to reconsider the forum issue. Arriving at same conclusion, the court denied its motion in a March 12, 2010 order.
'I'T-iE COURT OF AT'PE,4LS OF (^}3l if, SECOND APPELL,ATG DiS'T'KTCT Appx. 5 Count Six (fraud),7 dismissing both claims. The court also determined that Court Two
(accounting) should not go to the jury. The jury found for EnQuip. It awarded EnQuip
$207,115 in unpaid commissions; $268,423 in damages relating to breach of contract;
$105,000 for an indemnity claim allowed under Italian law; and $5,000 in lost service-work
profits.
{¶ 11} On June 29, 2011, the trial court entered final judgment, which reflects the
court's ruling on TyTg's directed-verdict motion and the jury's verdict. The trial court also
entered an order that awarded attorney's fees and court costs, under R.C. 1335.11, to the
defendants as the prevailing parties on Count Four.
{¶ 12) EnQuip appealed, and TyTg cross appealed.8
tl. Analysis
{1 13) While EnQuip and TyTg each presents four assignments of error, we will
review only EnQuip's first assignment of error and TyTg's first cross assignment of error.
Our rulings on these two assignments of error render the otliers moot, EnQuip's first
assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred by granting TyTg's motion for directed
verdict, and denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on its claim for
exemplary damages under R.C. 1335.11 (Count Four).9 TyTg's first cross assignment of
'EnQuip has not assigned error to the dismissal of Count Six.
8 Pfaudler joined TyTg's cross appeal so it is also an appellee.
'EnQuip's other assignments of error allege that the trial court erred by granting :)bbins & Myers`s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the jury's alter- io finding, miscalculating the amount of pre-judgment interest that TyTg owes, and iling to award EnQuip costs as the prevailing party.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SF.C(31VD ,3PPELLA.TE D[STRICT Appx. 6 error alleges that the trial court erred by overruling its motion for judgment on the
pleadings.''0 Taking the two assignments of error in logical order, we begin with TyTg's
cross assignment of error.
A. The meaning of the forum-selection clause
{¶ 14} The Agency Agreement's forum-selection clause states that "[t]he law Court
of Venice will be competent for any dispute." The trial court concluded that the clause is
permissive. A permissive clause means simply that the parties have waived any right to
object to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the identified court. Vafmac Indus., Inc. v.
Ecotech Machrnery, lnc., 137 Ohio App,3d 408, 413, 738 N.E.2d 873 (2d Dist.2000). It
does not mean that they waived their rightto commence an action in another court that has
jurisdiction. Id. TyTg, though, contends that the forum-selection clause is exclusive. An
exclusive forum-selection clause means that the identified court is the only court with
jurisdiction-the parties rnustcommence any action in the identified court. Thus the central
issue in the first cross assignment of error concerns the meaning of the forum-selection
clause, the meaning of language in the parties' contract.
1. Language in a contract bears the meaning
intended by the parties to the contract
15} The answer to a question about what specific contract language means lies
in the contracting parties' intent-what did they intend the language to mean? It is the
10TyTg's other cross assignments of error allege that the trial court erred by enying its motion for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on ount One (breach of contract), awarding EnQuip pre-judgment interest, and granting nQuip's motion for directed verdict on two of its (TyTg's) contingent counterciaims.
TIIB COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE C}15TRlCT Appx. 7 court's task to determine the parties' intended meaning. St, IVlarys v. Auglaize Cty. Bd, of
Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 387, 2007-Ohio-5026, 875 N.E.2d 561, 118 ("The role of courts
in examining contracts is to ascertain the intent of the parties." (Citation omitted.)). The search for the parties' intended meaning begins with the contract itself. Their intent is
presumed to reside in the language they used. Graharra v. Drydock Coal Co., 76 Ohio St.3d
311, 313, 667 N.E.2d 949 (1996); Blair v: McDonagh, 177 Ohio App. 3d 262,
2008-Ohio-3698, 894 N.E.2d 377, t 49 (1st Dist.) ("in the construction of a written instrument, a court's primary objective is to give effect to the parties' intent, which can be found in the language they chose to employ.")
{¶ 16} A stumbling block in the search for intended meaning is ambiguity.
"Contractual language is ambiguous'* * * where its meaning cannot be determined from the four corners of the agreement or where the language is susceptible of two or more reasonable interpretations."' Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc., 524 F.3d 754, 763 (6th
Cir.2008), quoting Covington v. Lucia, 151 Ohio App.3d 409, 784 N.E.2d 186 (10th Dist.
2003). But there is no ambiguity if the subject language's meaning can be determined by considering the language in the context of other contractual language. See Id: ("in determining whether contractual language is ambiguous, the contract'must be construed as a whole' ** °`."), quoting 7'ri-State Group, Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co., 151 Ohio App.3d 1,
2002-C?hio-7297, 782 N.E.2d 1240, 138 (7th Dist.). Often, the intended meaning of a word or phrase may be clear when that word or phrase is considered in the context of other words or phrases in the contract. See 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Contracts, Section 123
(2012) ("A term that would otherwise cause ambiguity can be construed in the context of
Ti3T; COt)RT OF APPEALS OF OI4I0 SECOND AFPEI,C,A1'E D]STRICT Appx. 8 other terms in the contract to resolve the ambiguity."), citing Seringetti Const. Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 51 Ohio App. 3d 1, 553 N.E.2d 1371 (1st Dist.1988). Thus the intended meaning of any part of the part ies' contract should be determined in light of the whole contract. Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth.,
78 Ohio St.3d 353, 361, 678 N.E.2d 519 (1997) ("The court should read the contract as a whole and gather the intent of each part from the whole.").
2. Determining the intended meaning of a forum-selection clause
{¶ 17} Ohio's rules of contract construction raise the presumption that the parties' intended their forum-selection clause to be permissive unless there is "'some further language indicating the parties' intent to make jurisdiction exclusive."' El UK Holdirrgs, tnc, v. Cinergy UK, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22326, 2005-Ohio-1271, ¶ 21, quoting John
Boutari & Son Wine & Spirits, S.A. V. Attiki Importers & Dist. Inc., 22 F.3d 51, 52 (2d
Cir.1 994). There are few Ohio cases that consider what language indicates that parties intended their forum-selection clause to be exclusive, and no cases feature language like that here. So we look to federal cases.
(118) Federal courts also presume that a forum-selection clause is permissive absent language of exclusion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the few federal courts that has directly addressed the exclusive-language exception, found that a forum- selection clause containing language like that here, when considered in the context of a choice-of-law provision, indicated the intent to make jurisdiction exclusive. In Albemarle
Corp. v. Astrazeneca UK Ltd., 628 F.3d 643 (4th Cir.2016), the choice-of-law and forum- selection clauses in the parties' contract stated that the contract "shall be subject to English
TF3F,CEICJRT OF APPEALS OF 01110 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT AppX. 9 lr r
Law and the jurisdiction of the English High Court." Altaemarle at 646. The court construed
the forum-selection clause under federal law, which like Ohio law, makes the particular
language used by the parties dispositive and which like Ohio law, presumes that a forum-
selection clause is permissive unless there is specific language of exclusion. The court
noted that if the clause in the Albemarle parties' contract is considered alone, out of
context, it looks permissive. But the court continued, if it is considered in context,.
specifically in the context of the choice-of-law provision, the forum-selection clause looks
exclusive. Said the court, "the [forum-selection] clause taken in context does. contain what
amounts, in effect, to language of exclusion. The clause here includes language that
English law, not American federal law, must be applied." (Citation omitted.) Id. at 651. The
meaning of the forum-selection clause intended by the parties, then, was found in their
choice-of-faw provision. Thus their intended meaning was the clause's meaning in English
law. Accord TH Agricu/ture & tVutrition, L.L.C. v. Ace European Grp. Ltd., 416 F.Supp.2d
1054, 1 076 (D.Kan.2006) (concluding that a similar choice-of-law provision provided "[b]y
its plain terms" that interpretation of a forum-selection clause was governed by the law of
The Netherlands).
(119) We think that the Fourth Circuit's analysis in Albemarle is the proper analysis
also under Ohio law. A choice-of-law provision should be considered as evidence of the
meaning of a forum-selection clause in the same contract.
B. A forum-selection clause should be interpreted
under the law chosen by the parties
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OEI10 SECO1V.1) APPELLATE I7t5TRICT A ppx. 10 14
(¶ 20!) EnQuip contends that a choice-of-law provision and a forum-selection clause
are separate and distinct such that the choice of law should not affect the forum selection.
See El UK Holdings, 2005-Ohio-1271, ¶ 23 ("[A] choice of law clause is separate and
distinct from a forum selection clause and is not to be interpreted as such. *** Therefore,
such a clause should have no bearing on the determination of whether a forum selection
clause is mandatory or permissive."). Traditionally, this has been true. Crystal &
Giannoni-Crystal, Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses: A "Gallant Knight" Still
Seeking Eldorado, 8 S.C. J. int'1. L. & Bus. 203, 223 (2012), Courts would apply the parties'
choice of law to substantive issues, but they would apply their own law to procedural
matters. Forum selection was seen as a procedural matter, so courts applied their own law
to resolve forum-selection matters. Indeed, this is how the trial court here reasoned and
how it arrived at its conclusion.
(¶ 21) But the conventional application of the substance-procedure dichotomy to
forum-selection matters is problematic. Itfailsto recognize that the "forum-selection matter"
is composed of at least two discrete, ttiough interrelated, issues, only one of which is
procedural. One issue is how to interpret the forum-selection clause. This is a substantive
issue concerned with what the clause means. The other issue is whether to enforce the
clause. Only this issue is truly procedural because only when a court enforces a forum-
selection clause does the forum change. A court could interpretthe clause and then decide
not to enforce it,
{¶ 22) Perhaps for this reason, the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws
discards the traditional approach of deciding whether an issue is "substantive" or
TI-3E COURT OF APPEALS OF 013I0 SECOND APPEL.LATI; DISTRICT Appx. 1^ . . . .'^. I - ^ ...... ^.. ^ ,. :^' . . , :" - . , . .
"procedural." Federal courts, where international disputes more often tend to arise, have
noted that a forum-selection clause raises the substantive and procedural issues identified
above. They also have concluded that the parties' choice of law should be used to interpret
their forum-selection clause.
1. The Restatement of Conflict of Laws
(123) The Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws explicitly warns about the rote
use of the substance-procedure dichotomy: "These characterizations [of substance and
procedure] * '' * have led some courts into * * * adherence to precedents that have
classified a given issue as `procedural' or'substantive', regardless of what purposes were
involved in the earlier classifications." 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws,
Section 122, Comment b(197't). Thus the Restatement discards the facile analysis that
led courts to apply their own law to an issue simply because the issue was deemed
procedural. 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Conflict of Laws, Section 136, at 179 (2009),
citing id. Instead, the Restatement "goes directly to the question whether the law of the
forum should be applied with respect to each particular subject." Id., citing 1 Restatement,
Section 122, Comment b.
2. Federal-court decisions
(124) Some federal courts have said that using the parties' choice of law to
interpret their forum-selection clause simply makes sense. Just like their chosen law is
used to interpret every other provision in their contract, it should also be used to interpret
their forum-selection clause. The Seventh Circuit has stressed the simplicity of this. Writing
for the court in Abbott Laboratories v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd:, 476 F.3d 421, 423
THE COt1ItT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT A,JpX. 12 tt ,
(7th Cir.2007), Judge Posnerwrote that "[slimplicity argues for determining the validity and
meaning of a forum selection clause, in a case in which interests other than those of the
parties witl not be significantly affected by the choice of which law is to control, by
reference to the law of the jurisdiction whose law governs the rest of the contract in which
the clause appears * * * rather than making the court apply two different bodies of law in
the same case." Abbott at 423, citing Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 465 F.3d 418, 428 (10th
Gir.2006), The Second Circuit, while not deciding the issue," said in Phillips v. Audio
Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir.2007), "we cannot understand why the interpretation of
a forum selection clause should be singled out for application of any law other than that
chosen to govern the interpretation of the contract as a whole." Phillips at 386, citing Yavuz
at 428 and Abbott Labs, at 423. The court noted that the analysis of a forum-se8ection
clause involves several steps, including the substantive issue of interpretation and the
procedural matter of enforceability. It concluded federal law should be used to determine
a forum-selection clause's enforceability. "This is because enforcement of forum clauses
is an essentially procedural issue," said the court, "while choice of law provisions generally
implicate only the substantive law of the selected jurisdiction." (Citations omitted.) Id. at
384. But the court said that it makes less sense to apply federal law to issues of meaning.
Id. at 385 ("We find less to recommend the invocation of federal common law to interpret
the meaning and scope of a forum clause.").
{T 25} A Michigan federal district court has stressed that using the law chosen by
the parties to interpret their forum-selection clause is only logical. In Global Link, LLC. v.
"The Phillips court noted the issue sua sponte. It did not decide the issue use the parties did not dispute it and therefore had not briefed it.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 0111E7 A APPELLATE DISTRICT 11ppX.ppx. 13 Karamtech Co., Ltd., 06-CV-14938, 2007 WL 1343684 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2007), the
parties' contract contained a choice-of-law provision in which they agreed that "[t]he
formation, validity and enforcement of this contract shall be governed by Korean law."
Global Link at *1. There was also a forum-selection clause that provided, "All disputes
arising from this contract between the parties shall be subject to the jurisdiction of a court
in Korea which has jurisdiction over the headquarter office of Karam Tech." Id. The district
court pointed out that "there can be no enforcement of a contract without interpreting the
contract." (ct. at *2. "[ijt is logical," said the court, "to interpret a provision of an agreement
under the law that the parties agreed would govern issues arising out of the agreement.°
Id.
{¶ 26} A New York district court concluded that it was required to apply the law
chosen in the choice-of-law provision to interpret the forum-selection clause in order to
honorthe parties' choice-of-lawagreement. In Simon v. Fo%y, W.D.N.Y. No. 07-CV-766S,
2011 WL 4954790 (Oct. 18, 2011), the pertinent contract provision provided, "This
Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the
parties hereto shall be governed by, the laws of the Province of Ontario. Each of the parties
hereto irrevocably attorns to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario." Simon
at *4. The defendant argued that the provision was exclusive, as interpreted under federal
law; the plaintiff argued that it was permissive, as interpreted under Ontario iaw, The district court discussed the Second Circuit's decision in Phillips. The court noted that, though Phillips did not actually decide the issue, at least one district court in the Second
Circuit had decided it in the way suggested in Phillips. Simon at *5, citing Evergreen Naf'1
THE COURT OF APPEALS 43FO^HJO SECOND Al?PE'LLLATE DISTR3C.T Appx. 14 (I 1
lndem. Co. v; Capstone Bfdg. Corp., 2008 WVL'349457 (D.Conn. Feb. 6, 2008). The Simon
court concluded that the parties' choice of law must be honored and therefore used to
interpret their forum-selection clause.
27} Most recently, another Michigan district court also held that the law chosen
by the parties in a choice-of-law provision should be used to interpret a forum-selection
clause. In Lanier v. Syncreon Holdings, Ltd., E.D.Mich. No. 11-14780, 2012 Wl. 3475680
(Aug. 14, 2012), the pertinent provision provided:
The validity and enforceability of this Plan shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of Preland and the courts or [sic]
Ireland shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit, actioli or
proceedings that may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement and
for such purposes irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of such courts
without regard to choice of laws or conflict of laws provisions thereof that
would direct the applicable [sic] of the laws of any jurisdiction,
Lanier at *4. The court said that the enforcement of a forum-selection clause is not a
pr®cedural matter of jurisdiction or venue but is a substantive matter of contract. Accord
toalmac, 137 Ohio App.3d 408, 738 N.E.2d 873. The courtthen distinguished enforceability
from interpretation. A forum-selection clause's enforceability, said the court, must be
determined under federal law, because whether to enforce such a clause is an issue of
procedure. But what a forum-selection clause means is not a matter of procedure but one
of contract interpretation. The district court held that "determining the meaning and scope
of a forum selection clause is a separate substantive inquiry that is controlled by the law
TI-IE COUEZT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Appx. 15 chosen in the contract itself." Lanier at *5.
(128) Each of these federal-court cases discussed above cites as support the same
decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 465 F.3d 418.
Yavuz gives a thorough rationale for the idea that parties' choice of law should be used to
interpret their forum-selection clause. The Yavuz court, like other courts have, pointed out
that there is no good reason why the law identified in the parties' choice-of-law provision
should not interpret their forum-selection clause. The forum-selection clause is just another
clause in the parties' contract-their agreement on the proper forum for their disputes. Why
then, asked the court, should this clause be treated differently than every other one? "We
see no particular reason, at least in the international context," said the court, "why a
forum-selection clause, among the multitude of provisions in a contract, should be singled
out as a provision not to be interpreted in accordance with the law chosen by the
contracting parties." Yavuz at 428, citing I Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws,
Section 204(a). Interpreting it under the parties' chosen law, the court continued, honors
the parties' agreement: "[W]hen the contract contains a choice-of-law clause, a court can
effectuate the parties' agreement concerning the forum only if it interprets the forum clause
under the chosen law." Id.
{¶ 29) The court based its reasoning on U.S. Supreme Court opinions that support the Court's holding that forum-selection clauses are enforceable in the context of international disputes. The Yavuz court noted that these opinions "emphasize the primacy of the parties' agreement regarding the proper forum." td. Acknowledging thatthe Supreme
Court has not addressed the issue of a forum-selection clause's meaning, the Yavuz court
TI-TE Ct3UPET 0F AI'PEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DIS3'TtiCT I Vppx. 16 took the reasoning that the Court has used to support their enforcement and applied it to
their interpretation:
If the parties to an international contract agree on a farum-selection clause
that has a particular meaning under the law of a specific jurisdiction, and the
parties agree that the contract is to be interpreted under the law of that
jurisdiction, then respect for the parties' autonomy and the demands of
predictability in international transactions require courts to give effect to the
meaning of the forum-selection clause underthe chosen law, at least absent
special circumstances.
(Citation omitted,) Id. at 430.
{I 30} Thus the Yavuz court held that "just as the Supreme Court has made clear
that under federal law the courts should ordinarily honor an international commercial
agreement's forum-selection provision, * * * the courts should ordinarily honor an
international commercial agreement's forum-selection provision as construed underthe law
specified in the agreement's choice-of-law provision." Id.
{¶ 31} We think that Yavuz's reasoning is persuasive.
C. The meaning of the forum-selection clause here
is its meaning in Italian law
32} The Agency Agreement contains EnQuip and TyTg's definition of certain aspects of their relationship. Article I defines EnQuip's sales territory-the United States,
Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas. Article 2 specifies the equipment that EnQuip may sell. Article 3 defines TyTg's obligations and Article 4 defines EnQuip's. Article 5 concerns
THE COURT O_P APPEALS OF OxTO SEfiE)N[) APPELLATT DISTRICT Appx. 17 ll r
who pays the expenses that EnQuip incurs while trying to sell TyTg's products. Article 6
contains their agreement about EnQuip's commissions (that one will be paid on each sale,
the amount, when it becomes due, and other details). Article 7 talks about the length of
their contractual relationship, how it may be terminated, and what happens when it is
terminated. Article S specifies the law that governs and interprets the terms of the
Agreement (Italian law) and the court that is competent to settle their disputes (the Court
of Venice). Finally, Article 9, the last article, concerns a few miscellaneous matters.
(133) This case focuses, and hinges, on Article 8. This article is in English, like the
rest of the Agency Agreement, and states: "This agreement shall be gciverned by and
interpreted in accordance with the Italian law. The law Court of Venice will be competent
for any dispute." The first sontence is a choice-of-law provision, and the second sentence
is the forum-selection clause. Not only did EnQuip and TyTg agree in the choice-of-law
provision that Italian law would govern the Agreement, they specifically agreed that Italian
law would interpret its language. No language is excepted.
(¶ 34) The plain terms of the choice-of-law provision compel the finding that EnQuip
and TyTg intended the language in Article 8, just like they intended the language in every
other Article, to have the meaning given it by Italian law. In other words, the meaning of the
forum-selection clause-whether it is permissive or exclusive-is its meaning in Italian law
D. Italian law gives the forum-selection clause an exclusive meaning
{J 351 As a preliminary matter, we note that Ohio courts may determine the law of
a foreign country, which determination is made as a matter of law. See Civ.R, 44.1 (B). In
making the determination, courts "may consider any relevant material or source, including
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF bHIO SECON[3 APPELLATE DISTRICT Appx. 18 ad .
testimony, whether or not submitfed by a party." Id. To determine what Italian law says the
forum-selection clause means, we rely on materials submitted to the trial court that have
been translated into English.
{¶ 361 Italy is a signatory of the 1967 Brussels Convention, Article 17 of the
convention provides that if parties agree that a particular court is "to have jurisdiction to
settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular
legal relationship, that court * * * shall have exclusive jurisdiction." Based on this Article,
ltaly's highest court, the Supreme Court of Cassation (Corte di Cassazione), has held that
a forum-selection clause in which the parties agree that "the competent court for any
possible dispute is the court of the initiating party" conferred exclusive jurisdiction on that
court. Chopova v. G.B. S.a:1. (1994).12 The Court of Genoa has said that it is not necessary
for the clause to expressly refer to the identified court's exclusivity. G. S.p.A. v. R. {2007}."
(1137) Paralleling Article 17 is Article 23 of E.U. Council Regulation No. 4412001.
This regulation is binding on all European Union member states, one of which is Italy.
Article 23 likewise provides that if parties agree that a particular court is "to have jurisdiction
'aThe Court in Chopova said that "a clause providing that the competent court for y possible disputes is the court of the plaintiff confers to the designated court an ernational value and, therefore, is the unique criterion and essential requirement for lividuating the legal system to which the court must belong, with the consequence at the latter is granted the exclusive competence to settle any dispute arising from the ative agreement."
"in this case, the Genoan court held that the parties' intent was to submit their isputes to a Zurich judge exclusively. A provision in the parties' contract provided: ;wiss law applies. The competent court for possible disputes arising from the contract ; Zurich; ordinary judges shall be competent." The court said that "it is not necessary iat the exclusivity results from an express textual indication" because Article 17 does ot require parties to expressly mention exclusivity.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND A.PY[LLATE 1?fSTRICT Appx. 19 to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may a(se in connection with a particular
legal relationship, that court **"shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive
unless the parties have agreed otherwise." Italy's highest court has said that because
Article 23 is "substantially analogous" to Article 17 the interpretation of Article 23 must be
based on Article 17, Saneco S.A. v. Toscoline S.r.l. (2006).
{¶ 38) England is also an E.U. member state. ln Albemarle, the Fourth Circuit case
we discussed above, the court said that under Article 23 of the Brussels Convention the
parties' forum-selection clause in that case was exclusive. The court noted that the English
High Court, which had ruled on the same contract, agreed: "'As a matker of English law, *
* * that clause would be construed as being an exclusive jurisdiction clause, as was
conceded by Albemarle in the 2008 Action in light of Article 23,1 of the Judgements
Regulation (No. 4412001)."' Albemarle Corp., 628 F.3d at 651, quoting AstraZeneca UK
Ltd. v. Albemarle Int'l Corp., [2010J EWHC 1028 (Comm). Other federal courts in cases
where the law of other E. U. member states govemed the parties' contract have concluded
the same. Eg., THAgriculture, 416 F.Supp.2d at 1075-1079.14 The language in the forum-
selection clause here is essentially the same as the language in the Albemarle parties'
forum-selection clause.
14The forum-selection clause in TH Agriculture provided that "[a]ny dispute )ncerning the interpretation of the terms, conditions, limitations andfor exclusions 3ntained in this Policy is hereby understood and agreed by both the Insured and the isurers to be subject to the law of the Netheriands, Each party agrees to submit to the risdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction within The Netherlands ***. All iatters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice `such Court." The district court determined that'"the parties' contractually chosen law, hich is the law of The Netherlands, governs interpretation of the forum selection ause." The court concluded that, interpreted under the law of The Netherlands, the ause was exclusive.
TIIE COURT OF APPEALS OF ClPiIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Appx. 20 {I 391 The plain meaning of the forum-selection clause here in Italian law is that the
Court of Venice has exclusive jurisdiction. We conclude therefore that EnQuip and TyTg
intended the clause to have this exclusive and mandatory meaning.
40) To be clear, we have not decided the permissive-exclusive issue strictly as a choice-of-law issue. Rather, we have decided it simply as an issue of contract interpretation. We applied Ohio contract-construction law to the forum-selection clause.
Ohio law says that the meaning of a forum-selection clause is the meaning intended by the parties. Based on the parties' choice-of-law provision, which states that their agreement is to be interpreted in accordance with Italian iaw, we concluded that the meaning they intended is the forum-selection clause's meaning in Italian law. Consequently, we considered what meaning Italian law would give to the ciause's language. We then determined that Italian law would give the forum-selection clause an exclusive meaning.
(1411 Contrary to what EnQuip argues, and the trial court concluded, determining what the "clause means in Italian law does not entail applying Italian law. We do not conclude that the Court of Venice has exclusive jurisdiction in this case, which would be the case if we had applied Italian {aw. We conclude that the contract requires the action to be pursued in an Italian court. It is possible that the Italian court would conclude that the
Court of Venice does not have exclusive jurisdiction, based on }urisdictional rules other than those in Article 23 and Article 17. The issue here concerns only what EnQuip and
TyTg intended the clause to mean. We need not, and can not, determine whether the
Court of Venice actually does have exclusive jiarisdiction.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OI1I0 ^ SECOND APPEI.i,.ATF DISTRICTAppx. 1A21 E. The R.C, 1335.11 exemplary-damages claim
is beyond the scope of the forum-selection clause
(142) The second issue of meaning here is whether EnQuip's claims, specifically
the asserted R.C.1335.11 exemplary damages, come within the scope of the forum-
selection clause. The clause states that the Court of Venice is to settle "any dispute_" So
the question is, did the parties intend that the Court of Venice settle the disputes inherent
in EnQuip's claims? The answer is easiiydeterWned for the contract claims. But the same
cannot be said about the exemplary-damages claim.
(143) The claims in Counts One, Two, and Five are contract claims. The disputes
presented in these claims concern unpaid commissions under the terms of the agreement
and consequential damages and indemnity forterminating the agreement. These disputes
bear a plain connection to the Agency Agreement, so they fall squarely within the forum-
selection clause's scope.
{I 441 The claim in Count Four is a statutory claim under R.C. 1335.11. "Section
1335.11 deals narrowlywith the availability of exemplary damages for unpaid commissions
in dealings between a principal and a sales representotive:" Petroiaas Energia S.A. v.
Americas internatl., Inc., Case No. 5:04 CV 2433, 2005 WL 2133607,'`5 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 1,
2005). The statute's purpose is to ensure that sales representatives who sell in Ohio are
promptly paid the commissions due them. Johnson, MacDonalc! & Assoc. v, Webster
Plastics, 856 F.Supp. 1249, 1252 (S.D.Ohio 1994). To that end, R.C. 1335.11 allows a sales representative to obtain exemplary damages of up to "three times the amount of the commissions owed" plus attorney fees and costs. R.C. 1335.11(D).
THECE)URTCpr APPF,ALS OF C7l1lU SECOND ,4.PP-CLLATG DISTRICT Appx. 22 11 I
{I 45) EnQuip agrees that Italian law applies to determine its right to relief under all
of its claims except its claim for exemplary damages under R.C.1335.11. Enquip contends
that the choice-of-law provision does not apply with respect to this claim because R.C.
1335.11 itself renders the choice-of-law provision void. The statute provides: "Any provision
in any contract between a sales representative and principal is void if it purports to da any
of the following: (1) Waive any provision of this section; (2) Make the contract subject to
the laws of another state; [or] (3) Limit the right of the sales representative to initiate
litigation or alternative dispute resolution in [Ohio]," R.C. 1335.11(F). We agree that the
choice-of-law provision does not apply with respect to EnQuip's claim for exemplary
damages. But this does not mean that Ohio law applies to determine these damages.
(146) Initially, we note several difficulties that we have with allowing this claim. The
Agency Agreement provides that its application is subject only to the laws of Italy-not any
other state. Moreover, we hesitate to declare that an Ohio statute trumps a contract that
was negotiated outside Ohio between an Italian manufacturer and a Florida-based sales
representative and allows sales in four different countries and every U.S. state-especially
when only a very small number of sales made under the contract involved Ohio and even
fewersafes are likely relevant to the R.C.1335.'I 1 claim. This is particularly true when Ohio
does not predominate in the agreement. Finally, several other states have statutes similar
to R.C. 1335.11. Many of these statutes also provide that that state's law prevails,
excluding any other state's law from applying." The convoluted mess that could be created
15See, e.g., N.C.Gen:Stat.Ann, 66-193 ("A provision in any contract between a les representative and a principal purporting to waive any provision of this Article ^** a contract subject to the laws of another state, is void."); Tex.Bus. & Com. Code in. 54.002(c) ("A provision in the contract establishing venue for an action arising
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 07-TIC; SECOND AF'PELLATE flIST12fC:T Appx. 23 in trying to determine which state's law should apply in a multi-state contract must be
avoided.
{¶ 47} We conclude that, though R.C.1335.11(F) does apply to void a choice-of-law
provision and forum-selection clause, Ohio's choice-of-law rules ultimately determine the
applicable law. The Ohio Supreme Court has said that if one party asserts that another
jurisdiction's law should apply to resolve an issue and the incident underlying the cause of
action occurred in that jurisdiction, "resort to Ohio's choice-of-law rules is necessary."
Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 91 Ohio St. 3d.474, 476, 747 N.E.2d 206 (2001).
Therefore we use these rules to determine which law applies in this case to the availability
of exemplary damages.
F. Ohio law does not apply to the issue of exemplary damages
{^ 481 Ohio's choice-of-law rules are the rules in the Second Restatement of Conflict
of Laws. Am. Interstate Ins. Co, v. G & H Serv. Ctr., Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 521,
2007-Ohio-608, 861 IrI.E,2d 524, ¶ 7-8 (stating that the Court has "adopted the
Restatement in its entirety" to govern choice-of-law analysis). The rules "'do notthemselves
determine the rights and liabilities of the parties, but rather guide decision as to which local
law rule will be applied to determine these rights and duties."' Ohayan at 476, citing 1
Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws, Section 2, Comment a(3),
nder the contract in a state other than this state is void."); 820 ill,Ann.Stat. 120(2 ("Any rovision in any contract between a sales representative and principal purporting to ,aive any of the provisions of this Act shall be void."); Ala.Code 8-24-5(a) ("This iapter may not be waived * * * by any provision in a contract attempting to make the :)ntract or agreement subject to the laws of another state. A waiver of any provision of iis chapter is void,").
THE C.ODURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND AI'PELLATE DISTRIC'r Appx. 24 II
{149} The availability of exemplary damages is most often analyzed as a tort issue,
If exemplary damages are awarded in a contract action, it is typically because the
breaching party also committed an act with a tort-like degree of fault that allows such
damages. Consequently, the Restatement rules used to determine which law applies to an
exemplary-damages issue are rules that apply to tort issues. The tort rules use the "most
significant relationship" test to determine which law applies to determine an issue about
exemplary damages. I Restatement, Section 145(1).'& "To determine the state with the
most significant relationship, a court must * "* consider the general principles set forth in
Section 145."Am. Interstate at ¶8. These general principles provide thatthe applicable law
is the law of the state that, with respect to the exemplary-damages issue, "has the most
significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 5,"
1 Restatement, Section 145('!). The principles in Section fi underlie all choice-of-law rules
and are used to evaluate an issue's reEationshipto the occurrence, the relevant states, and
the parties. 1 Restatement, Section 145, Comment 6. In applying the Section 6 principles
to determine the law applicable to a tort issue, certain contacts must be considered. 1
Restatement, Section 145(2). These contacts are: "(a) the place where the injury occurred,
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place
where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered." Id.
,3"The law selected by application of the rule of § 145 determines the right to empiary damages." 1 Restatement, Section 171, Comment d. Accord 16 American risprudence 2d, Conflict of Laws, Section 133, at 176 (2009) ("Appiying the conflicts law rules of the Restatement, punitive damages are a matter of substantive law verned by the law of the state selected by application of the conflict of laws ruies."),
'J'I3E COURT OF APPEALS OF OHTO SECOND APPELLATE UICT'RIC.T Appx. 25 {¶ 50} In this case, it is readily apparent that among the three possible
choices-Ohio, Florida, Italy-whose iaw potentially applies, Ohio has the least significant
relationship to the occurrence and parties. The jury awarded EnQuip a total of $207,115
in unpaid commissions. Of this total, the jury found that EnQuip was owed $41,361 in
commissions for sales to customers that were closed during the contract term. This is the
same amount that EnQuip claimed it had not been paid for commissions due from May -
June 2007, when TyTg terminated the contract. One of these safes was to Ricerca
Biosciences, an Ohio company. The amount of commission owed to EnQuip on this sale
was $24728. The rest of the total award is based on the jury's finding that EnQuip was
owed $165,754 for sales initiated during the contract term but for which TyTg did not
receive payment until after termination. EnQuip claimed that it was owed $184,089.73 in
commissions for these saCes.'7 Evidentiy the jury did not find that all of these commissions
were actually owed. Important here, though, is that none of the post-termination
commissions-including those counted by EnQuip but not the jury-was to an Ohio
company. Thus there is only one, small disputed commission related to Ohio. ,
{T 51} That the commission from only one Ohio sale is disputed is implied by
EnQuip in its memorandum opposing the defendants' motion regarding personal
jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and the R.C. 1335.11 claim. EnQuip said, "Defendants'
[sic] argue that EnQuip has failed to connect its claims to Ohio"* * statiing] in a conclusory
""Known Commissions Due to EnQuip on Orders Booked But For Which ayment was Not Made by Customer Before Termination," attached to Plaintiff's Exhibit 63 (EnQuip's Third Set of Interrogatories to TyTg).
`I`HE COURT OF APt EALS OF OtII<3 SECOND APt'F;LLAT13 I3iSTRICT Appx. 26 manner that '[n]o such sale or commission is in dispute.''g In response to defendants'
claim, EnQuip pointed out that in its complaint it asserted that its claims "arise in part with
regard to the sale by R&M, Pfaudler and TyTg andlor R&M Italian of TyTg Products or
Pfaudier products sold to EnQuip customers or potential customers, on which EnQuip was
due a commission, including products sold in or from Ohio."'9And EnQuip pointed out that
TyTg sent a letter "to EnQuip's customers, including customers in Ohio informing them not
to submit payments to TyTg through EnQu'ip."20 But EnQuip referred to only one disputed
commission that came from a sale to an Ohio customer-the $247 commission on the sale
to Ricerca Biosciences.29
(152) Given the evidence, we conclude that Ohio does not satisfy the "most
significant relationship" test. Therefore Ohio substantive law does not appfyto determine
EnQuip's right to recover exemplary damages.
{¶ 53} We need not determine whether it is Florida or Italy that has the "most
significant relationship" because neither state's law allows EnQuip to recover exemplary
damages. Florida had a R.C. 1335.11-like statute that protected_safes representatives'
'BEnQuip Technologies Group Incorporated's Memorandum in Opposition to =fendants' Motion Regarding Personal Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, and R.C. 1335.11, p.1 J.
'°Third Amended Complaint,^'!2.
2°1d.; see Plaintiffs Exhibit 220 (August 2, 2007 letter from TyTg).
2'Affiidavit of Robert W. Naidel, ¶4 (attached to EnQuip's opposition )randum) ("EnQuip is currently owed a commission on at least one sale it red from Ricera in Concord, Ohio in February 2007.").
THE COURT OF tlPPT;t1L,5 OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRJCT .AppX. 27 ...^. . .. : ,...... ; . . . i, . . _ . .. . . - _:, ^_...... _.. . . ^ . ^ .
commissions, former F.S. 636.201.22 It provided, like R.C. 1335.11, that if a manufacturer
failed to timely pay commissions, the sales representative could bring an action for
exemplary damages, Feniger v. Cafe Aroma, M.[?.Fla. No. 2:05CV319-TAW-SPC, 2007
VVL 853735, *4 (Mar. 16,2007), citing former F.S. 686.201(3)(b). But unlike R.C. 1335.11,
the principal's duty to pay commissions arose only if the parties' contract "`was not reduced
to writing."' Id. at *4, quoting former F.S. 686.201(3)(a). Because EnQuip's contract with
TyTg is in writing, EnQuip cannot bring an action under the Florida statute. According to
the Italian-law expert appointed by the trial court, Italian law quite simply does not provide
for the recovery of exemplary damages for breach or termination of an agency
agreement.23
{¶ 54} One final issue remains related to the R.G. 1335.11 claim. The trial court
awarded defendants Robins & Myers, Pfaudler, and TyTg attorney's fees and court costs
under R.C. 1335.11(D), which provides that "[t]he prevailing party in an action brought
under this section is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs." Although
EnQuip did not expressly assign error to the award,24 given our conclusion that R.C.
1335.11 does not apply in this case, we review the award sua sponte.
22OnJuly 1, 2011, the Florida legislature repealed this statute.
23Expert Report of Professor Daniele U. Santosuosso, Question 22, p. 44. /vhere in the report Professor Santosuosso says that Article 1223 of the Italian Civil : provides that "[d]amages for non-fulfillment or delay shall comprise both the loss red by the creditor and the missed earning, as long as they are an immediate and t consequence of the non-fulfillment or delay." (Emphasis added.) Expert Report, Ption 14, p. 34 n. 10.
24 1n its notice of appeal, EnQuip did include the trial court's June 29, 2011 order rdirtg the attorneys' fees among those it is appealing from.
TI-IE COURT OF APPEALS OF O1iIC) SECOND APPELLATE DIS'LKiCT Appx. 28 11 {T 55} The trial court erred. In this case, Ohio lacks any meaningful relationship to
the issues and the parties. So R.C. 1335.11 simply doesn't apply to the issue of exemplary
damages, Division (D) of the statute allows both a sales representative to recover
exemplary damages and the prevailing party to recover attorneys' fees and court costs.
Just like the statute does not apply to determine whether EnQuip may recover exemplary
damages, it does not apply to determine whether the defendants may recover attorney's
fees and court costs related to whether EnQuip may recover exemplary damages.
I11. Conclusion
{¶ 56} These are our rulings on the parties' assignments of error. EnQuip's first
assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred by directing a verdict in favor of TyTg
on the claim in Count Four, for exemplary damages under R.C. 1335.11. This assignment
of error is overruled because, in this case, Ohio law does not apply to the issue of
exemplary damages. TyTg's first cross assignment of error aiieges, based on the forum-
selection clause in the parties' Agency Agreement, that the trial court erred by not entering
judgment on the pleadings in the defendant's favor on all of EnQuip's claims. This
assignment of error is sustained with respect to the claims in Counts One, Two, and Five.
But it is overruled with respect to the claim in Count Four because that claim is not
encompassed by the forum-selection clause. Because no claims remain, the other
assignments of error and cross-assignments of error are moot and need not be addressed,
see App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). Also, having raised the issue sua sponte, we concluded that the
trial court erred by awarding attorney's fees and court costs in connection with Count Four,
THE CnUR'[' U:F APPEALS OF OlitO t^PPELLATr D(STRTC'r 1^1ppx.Appx. 29 {¶ 57) Our judgment in this case has three parts. One, the trial court's June 29,
2011 final judgment, directing a verdict for TyTg on Count Four is affirmed. Two, the
judgments with respect to Counts One, Two, and Five, are reversed and vacated. The rest
of the February 17 order is affirmed. Three, the trial court's June 29, 2011 order awarding
attorney's fees and court costs is reversed and vacated.
{¶ 58) As a result of our judgment, no claims remain among the parties. This case
is remanded for the trial court to enter the appropriate dismissal orders and to tie up any
loos'e ends. We note that our judgment here necessarily affects other orders that the trial
court has issued. Thus, for example, the court must vacate its June 1, 2011 order,
stemming from Count Two's accounting claim, that TyTg make its "books" available for
EnQuip to inspect. We leave it to the parties and the trial court to determitie on remand
what other orders must be revisited.
(1591 We are keenly aware that much time, effort, and money of the parties, and
the trial court, appear to have been needlessly expended. It is unfortunate in this case that
Ohio law did not allow Ty Fg to obtain appellate review of the forurn-selection matter until
now. Nevertheless, quel che e fatto e fattv.2'
GRADY, P.J., and FAIN, J., concur.
""What's done is done." Google Translate, http://transiate.google.com (accessed . 9, 2012).
THE GOUR'T OF APPEALS OF OIiIC} SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Appx. 30 Copies mailed to:
John B. Pinney Katherine M. Lasher Kara A. Czanik lVlafthew E. Liebson Christine M. Haaker Terry W. Posey, Jr. Hon. Stephen Wa(aver
TFiE COURT OF APPEALS CiF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Appx. 31 FINAL ENTRY
OF
GREENE COUNTY
COIJ7RT OF APPEALS
Filed on December 28, 2012
Served Per App.R. 30(A) on December 31, 2012
.Appx. 32 ^f!
2012 DEC 28 gn 8* ol
CLl^!'a t OF FiE'1 -L.,,s:;^LJ ,CI.E^K ff COURTS,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT . GREENE COUNTY
ENQUIP TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INCORPORATED, et a!. : Appellate Case No. 2011-CA-39
Plaintiff-AppellantlCross-Appel lee Trial Court Case fdo. 08-CV-1276
V. (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) TYCON TECUNOGLASS S:r:A, et al. FINAL ENTRY Defendant-Appe[Iee/Cross-Appellant
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on the 2 8th day
of December ,2012, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Costs to be paid as follows: 100% by piaintiff-appeilanfilcross-appeilee, EnQuip
Technologies Group, Inc.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), it is hereby ordered that the clerk of the G
County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve notice of this judgment upon all parties
make a note in the docket of the mailing.
1^id TH®MAS J. GRAD g.ludge
TT3E COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEC©ND APPELLATE DISTRICT
Appx. 33 _2_
MlKE:FAlN, Judge
MICHA L T. HALL, udge
Copies mailed to:
John B. Pinney! Kara A. Czanik Katherine M. Lasher Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP 1900Fifth Third Center 511 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3157
Matthew E. Liebson Thompson Hine LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1291
Christine M. Haaker / Terry W. Posey, Jr. Thompson Hine LLP Austin Landing 1 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Dayton, Ohio 45342-4934
Hon. Stephen Wolaver Greene County Common Pleas Court 45 N. Detroit Street Xenia, OH 45385-2998
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHID SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
Appx. 34 DECISION AND ENTRY
OF
GREENE COIUNTY
COURT OF APPEALS
DENYING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Rendered on July 1$, 2013
Filed on July 22, 2013
rlppx. 35 ^
[ ^.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
ENQUIP TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INCORPORATED, et al. APpelIate Case No. 2011-CA°39 Piaintiff-AppelEanVGross«Rppel1es Trial Court Case No. 08-CVb1276 V. (Civil Appeal from T1'CQN TECHNOGLASS S.r.l., et al. Common Pleas Gourt)
Defendant-AppeIteefGross-Appe[tattt
DECtSIOial i46 ^NTRY Rendered on the 18th day of July, 2013
. • , . . . • , o .s
PER CUR1AM.
{I 11 This matter is before the Court on the application for recansideration made by
EnQuip TechnoCogies Group Inc. #`nQuip asks us to reconsider aspects of our Decarr►bsr 2&.,, 2012 doetsion in this case, EnQutp Technologies G^up Inc. v. Tycon Technoglass S.r;i, ...:^ Ohio App.3d -, 24't2-Ohio-6181 * - N.E,2d -- (2d Dist,).
n 2) "'App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent
of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an abvious error or rencfers
unsupportable decision under the faw.t16 State v. Gtllrspre, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24456, 2012-Ohla-2942,T 9, quofing State v. Owen,s,1't2 Ohio App,3d 334, 330, 678 N.E.2d 956
THE C(}il'R.T OF APPEALS OF 01410 Appx. 36 SEC C? NC I AA P B L L r1 T EDf S' C R ICT _2_
(11th Dist.1996). °`An application for reconsideration is not designed for use in instances
where a party simply disagrees with the conclusions reached and the logic used by an
appellate court."' Id., quoting Owens at 336. The test generally applied to decide an
application for reconsideration is whether the application "calls to the attention of the court an
obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not
considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been."
Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (10th Dist.1987), citing
Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App,3d 140, 450 N.Es2d 278 (10{h Dist. 1981), paragraph two
of the syllabus.
Background
{¶ 3) EnQuip, a Florida-based corporation, sold products in the U.S. for (and
manufactured by) Tycon Technoglass S. r. f. (TyTg), a company based in Venice,ltaly, whose
parent company was Robbins & Myers, Inc. (R&M), which had its headquarters in Ohio. A wriften contract governed the parties' relationship. It required TyTg to pay EnQuip a
commission on each sale. The contract contains a choice-of-law provision providing that the contract is governed by Italian law, and a forum-selection clause providing that the Venetian courts are to settle any disputes.
(14) After the parties' relationship soured and TyTg unilaterally terminated their contract, EnQuip filed a complaint in an Ohio court asserting several claims against TyTg: for breach of contract resulting in unpaid commissions, in Count One; for an accounting, in Count
Two; for exemplary damages and attomey's fees and costs under R.C. 1335.11(D), in Count
Four; and for breach of contract resulting in lost profits from service work, in Count Five.
EnQuip also sought to hold R&M jointly liable with TyTg under the alter-ego doctrine, TyTg
T33E COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO Appx. 37 SECOND APPE LLATE DJSTItiCT -3-
rnoved for judgment on the pleadings based on the forum-selection clause, and the trial court
overruled the motion. A jury found for EnQuip on the claims in Counts One and Five. The jury also found that R&M was TyTg's after ego, but the trial court later entered judgment
notwifihstanding the verdict for R&M on the claim for joint liability. On the claim in Count Two, the trial court ordered TyTg to make its books available to EnQuip for inspection. On the claims in Count Four the trial court directed a verdict for TyTg.
{1 5} On appeal, we concluded that all of EnQuip's claims should have been dismissed. Specifically, we concluded that the trial court should have entered judgment on the pleadings on the claims in Counts One, Two, and Five based on the forum-selection clause. And we upheld the court's directing of a verdict on the exemplary-dam ages claim under R.C. 1335.11 in Count Four. We held that Ohio law does not apply to this issue under
Ohio's choice-of-law rules. Because no claims remained, we concluded that the issue of
R&M's joint liability was moot. Accordingly, we did not review the error that EnQuip assigned to the trial court's entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict for R&M on this claim.
The Application for Reconsideration
{¶ 6} EnQuip alleges that we erred or failed to consider issues with respect to the
Count Four claims, R&M's joint liability, and the Count Five claim for unpaid service work.
The Count Four claims
{¶ 7} EnQuip alleges that we failed to recognize that Count Four asserts not only a claim for exemplary damages under division (D) of section 1335.11 but also asserts a statutory breach-of-contract claim resulting in unpaid commissions underdivision (C). EnQuip says that this claim is "clearly" asserted. We don't think it's so clear. The only paragraph in
Count Four that arguabiy asserts a statutory breach claim alleges. "In accordance with O.R.C.
THF. CCII;RT OF APPEALS OF OF-IIO Appx. 38 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT i i
-4-
§ 1335.11, said defendants, in addition to their liability for the actual commissions owed to
EnQuip, are also liable for exemplary damages up to three times the amount of actual
commissions owed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs." (Third Amended
Complaint, T 57).' The prepositional phrase "in addition to their liability for the actual
commissions owed to EnQuip" modifies "defendants." Grammatically speaking, this phrase
is nonrestrictive because it adds parenthetical information, that is, it does not identify which
defendants are liable (the sentence suggests they all are). See Garner's Modem American
Usage 905 (3rd Ed.2009) (saying, in the glossary entry for "nonrestrictive," that a
nonrestrictive modifier "add[s] information that is parenthetical but does not help identify the
referent"). The parenthetical nature of the phrase here is indicated by the use of commas.
See id. at 906 (saying, in the glossary entry for °nonrestrictive," that "[n]onrestrictive matter
is always set off from the rest of the sentence by commas"). Thus the phrase could be read
as referring to the aiready-presented claim for unpaid commission in Count One. We note too
that the trial court, in its oral directed-verdict ruling, referred only to the claim for exemplary
'Count Four consists of four paragraphs. The other three allege:
54. Plaintiff incorporates and restates all of the above allegations, including the allegations in Count One and Two, as part of this Count Four.
55. The commissions due EnQuip under the Agreement were not paid by or at the direction of TyTg, R&M, [or two other defendants] to EnQuip within 13 days of the date that they became due.
56. Knowing that there was at least $271,000 in commissions due EnQuip after termination of the Agreement [the contract], said defendants refusal and failure to pay the commissions due EnQuip was in bad faith and constituted willful, wanton and reckless misconduct.
(Third Amended Complaint).
THE COURT OF APPF,AI,S OF 01110 Appx. 39 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT _5_ damages.2 That we did not consider the allegedly asserted statutory--breach claim is not an obvious error.
(18) Furthermore, the claim is not one that should have been considered because doing so would not change our decision. Assuming that Count Four does assert a claim for sales comissions, as opposed to the additional exemplary damages it specifically refers to, and assuming that such a statutory claim exists,3 our conclusion under the applicable choice- of-law rule would be the same as our conclusion under the rule that we did apply: Ohio law does not apply because Ohio bears no relationship to the parties and little relationship to the
2The court pertinently said:
In regard to the 1335.11 Ohio Revised Code claim, once again, the Court harkens back to the agreement and understanding that Italian law is what controls this contract, including the aspect of Italian law that applies to the exclusive remedy available, which does not include exemplary or punitive damages which, to a great degree, is the heart of what ORC 1335.11 is all about.
* * *[`t]he Court is going to find that that claim should not and will notgo to the Jury.
(Appx. 61, Tr. 78).
3Our decision strongly suggests that we do not think that a cause of action for breach of contract exists under division (C).1/lTe said that "[s]ection 1335.11 deals narrowly with the availability of exemplary damages for unpaid commissions in dealings between a principal and a sales representative." (Citation omitted.) EnQuip, 2012-Ohio- 6181, at 144. "To that end," we said, "R.C. 1335.11 allows a sales representative to obtain exemplary damages of up to `three times the amount of the commissions owed' plus attorney fees and costs." /d:, quoting R.C. 1335.11(D). Accord Corporate Communication Services of Dayton, LLC v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., S.D.Ohio IVo. 3:08-CV-046, 2009 WL 3756274 (Nov. 9, 2009) ("Chapter 1335 of the Ohio Revised Code requires a principal to pay the sales representative all commissions due upon termination of a contract at the time of termination of the contracf. R.C. § 1335.11(C). If the sales representative proves that the failure to pay the com'missions was willful, wanton or reckless misconduct or bad faith, damages may be up to three times the amount of the commissions owed. Id,"); Marketing Assoc., Inc. v. Feflowes, Inc., N.D.Ohio No. 1`05CV1518, 2006 WL 721619 (Mar. 21, 2006).
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 01410 Appx. 40 SECOND APPELLATE T3ISTRICT claim.
(19) Ohio's choice-of-law rules are the rules in the Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict
of Laws, which governs the choice-of-law analysis "in its entirety." Am. Interstate Ins. Co. V.
G & H Serv. Ctr., lnc., 112 Ohio St.3d 521, 2007-Ohio-608, 861 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 8. For
purposes of any claim under R.C. 1335.11, the applicable law has not been chosen by the
parties. Division (F) of section 1335.11 voids contractual choice-of-law provisions and forum-
selection clauses. We applied the rules in Section 145 to determine the law that applies to the
issue of exemplary damages. The rules in Section 188 determine the law that applies to an
issue of contract. Under Section 188, the applicable law is that of the state with the "most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6."
1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws, Section 188(1) ( 1971), To help make this determination, Section 188 "provides that courts should considerthe place of contracting, the place of negotiation, the place of performance, the location of the subject matter, and the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties."
Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 91 Ohio St.3d 474, 477, 747 N.E.2d 206 (2001), citing
1 Restatement, Section 188(2). Here, the parties did not contract or negotiate in Ohio. Ohio is neither EnQuip's norTyTg's domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, or pEace of business. As we found in our decision, the only disputed commission related to Ohio is a
$247.20 commission on one sale to an Ohio company out of the total jury award of
$207,115.00 for unpaid commissions, or approximately one-tenth of one percent. See
EnQuip, 2012-Ohio-6181, at T 50-51.
(110) EnQuip further alleges, though, that it is errorto applythe rules in either Section
145 or Section 188 to the Count Four claims. Rather, EnQuip argues, the applicable rule is
7'HE COURT OF APPEALS OF OI3IO Appx. 41 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT -7.
the one in Section 6(1), which directs courts to follow (subject to constitutional limitations) "a
statutory directive of its own state on choice of law," I Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict
of Laws, Section 6(1) (1971). EnQuip says that division (F) of section 1335.11 is such a
direct€ve. On this matter, EnQuip is merely disagreeing with our logic and concfusion.'
{¶ 11} EnQuip argues that, even if division (F) is not a statutory directive, the General
Assembly's intent in division (F) is to have an Ohio court hear and decide section 1335.11
claims in cases like this one. EnQuip alleges we erred in our understanding of the statute's
purpose and scope. Again, EnQuip is merely disagreeing with our logic and conclusion. Our
decision makes it clearthatwe do notthink thatthe General Assembly intended R.C.1335.11
to apply to cases like the present one. See EnQuip at 144, 46, and 50. The underlying claim
in this case concerns relief requested by a Florida resident in its contract dispute with an
Italian resident when the only connection to Ohio is one, small allegedly unpaid commission
that, between these parties, is de minimus.lNe continue to believe our original analysis was
correct.
(112) Lastly, EnQuip alleges that we erred by concluding that Ohio has the least significantre€ationshiptothiscaseunderSection 145`s"mostsignifcantrelationship."EnQuip says that we ignored the jury's finding and the related evidence that R&M (an Ohio company
4We note that we do not think that division (F) is a statutory directive on choice of law. A comment to Section 6(1) explains that statutory directives are "[sjtatutes that are expressly directed to choice of law, that is to say, statutes which provide for the application of the local law of one state, rather than the local law of another state,° 1 Restatement, Section 6, Comment a. The comment notes that such statutes are rare: "A court will rarely find that a question of choice of law is explicitly covered by statute. That is to say, a court will rarely be directed by statute to apply the local law of one state, rather than the local law of another state, in the decision of a particular issue." I Restatement, Section 6, Comment b. Division (F) is not "expressly direct[ed] to choice of law." All it does is void choice-of-€aw provisions and forum-selection clauses; it does not affirmatively direct the application of Ohio Iaw.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO Appx. 42 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 81 at the time) was TyTg's alter ego. This finding artd evidence, EnQuip asserts, shows that the
unpaid-commissions claims in fact had their "most significant relationship" to Ohio. Neither
the jury's finding nor the evidence should have been considered.
{113} Thejury's alter-ego finding was irrelevant to our decision. The finding came after
the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the claims in Count Four, which is the
ruling that we were reviewing. And regardless, the directed-verdict determination considers
only the evidence that has been presented. Civ.R. 50(A)(4).
{114} The related evidence was not considered because we are not convinced that
the alter-ego doctrine of joint liability is relevant to the "most significant relationship" test.
Ohio's alter-ego doctrine is used to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold a parent jointly liable
vkiith a subsidiary "for [the parent's] own bad acts * * * when [the parent] use[s] the [subsidiary]
`for criminal or fraudulent purposes' to the detriment of a third party." Dombroski v. WellAoint,
Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 506, 2008-Ohio-4827, 895 N.C.2d 538, ^ 17, quoting Belvedere
Condominium Unit Owners'Assn. v. R.E Roark Cos., inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 274, 287 and 289,
617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993). "Piercing the corporate veil in this manner remains a`rare
exception,' to be applied only `in the case of fraud or certain other exceptional
circumstances."' Id., quoting Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 475,123 S.Ct.1655,
155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003). The alter-ego test "focuses on the extent of the [parent]'s control of the [subsidiary] and whether the [parent] misused the control so as to commit specific egregious acts that injured the plaintiff." !d, at T 18. But the "most significant relationship" test is not concemed about a parent company's misconduct. That test focuses on the relationships of the parties directly involved in the matter.
(115) The case that EnQuip cites in its application, Glover v. Small Bone Innovations,
° WL 2412068 (N.D.Ohio is inapposite )n Glouer, the dU
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO Appx. 43 SE:C(3ND APPELLATE DISTRICT fl . _
-9-
court held that it had personal jurisdiction over a parent company because the parent was the
alter ego of a subsidiary company over which the court undisputedly had personal jurisdiction.
But the district court applied an alter-ego theory under federal common law that is designed
for the personal-jurisdiction analysis. Glover at *4 (saying that "`in the parent-subsidiary
context, [this theory] provides that a non-resident parent corporation is amenable to suit in the
forum state if the parent company exerts so much control over the subsidiary that the two do
not exist as separate entities but are one and the same for purposes of jurisdictian,"' quoting
Estate of Thomson v, Toyota MoforCorp. Worldwida, 545 F.3d 357 (6th Cir.2008)). The alter-
ego theory used in Gloverserves a purpose that is entirely different from the purpose served
by Ohio's alter-ego doctrine and has nothing to do with a parent's misconduct.s
The joint-liability issue
{¶ 16} On appeal, EnQuip alleged that the trial court erred in vacating the jury's alter-
ego finding and in entering judgment for R&M on the claim for joint iiabiiity.6 We concluded
that the issue of joint liability was moot based on our conclusion that all of EnQuip's claims
should be dismissed. Because we continue to adhere to the latter conclusion, we adhere to
the former. This is not an issue that should have been considered.
SThe alter-ego theory considers these factors: '"(1) sharing the same employees and corporate officers; (2) engaging in the same business enterprise; (3) having the same address and phone lines; (4) using the same assets; (5) completing the same jobs; (6) not maintaining separate books, tax returns and financial statements; and (7) exerting control over the daily affairs of another corporation." Glover at'°4, quoting Thomson.
6Alternatively, EnQuip argued that R&M was jointly liable under the joint- participant doctrine, But EnQuip appears to have dropped this theory of joint liability before trial. The jury was instructed on the alter-ego theory only, and it found joint liability based on that theory. The trial court does not appear to have decided the direct- participant issue either.
TIIG COURT OF APPEALS OF nT-IIO Appx. 44 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT ...... , ...... : t I
^? I
-t0_
The Count Five claim for unpaid service work
(1171 With respect to the claim for unpaid service work in Count Five, the complaint
alleges generaliy that ` * * EnQuip's claims in this action are based on its rights under thfe]
Agreement and the relationships, duties and obligations established thereunder and created
as a result thereof." (Emphasis added.) (Third Amended Complaint, 131). Under Count Five,
the complaint alleges specifically that, "[i]n addition to commissions, the Agreement enabled
EnQuip to perform service work, both warranty and non-warranty, for customers who
purchased TyTg Products." (Emphasis added.) (Td, at 159). The complaint plainly presents
this claim as based on the parties' written contract. But at trial, this claim was amended to
reflect the evidence presented that this service work was performed under an oral contract.
EnQuip contends that because the claim is not based on the written contract it is not subject
to that contract's forum-selection clause. EnQuip alleges that therefore we erred by holding
that it should be dismissed based on the clause.
(1181 We did not err. That the Count Five claim was amended later was irrelevant to
our review. We were reviewing the trial court's order overruling the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings, which the court entered in February 2009. The claims we
considered were the ones the trial court considered, the ones presented in the complaint.
A Procedural Matter
(119) Finally, we address EnQuip's concern that it will be unable to timely appeal our
judgment with the Ohio Supreme Court. EnQuip asked us to grant its application immediately
in order to stop the 45-day appeal clock from ticking and then to consider the application's
merits. We did not grant this request. When EnQuip timely filed its application for
TTiE COURT OF APPEALS OF OI310 Appx. 45 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 11-
reconsideration, the clockwas stopped automatically by Supreme Court Rule of Practice 7.01,
which provides that "[w]hen a party timely files an application for reconsideration in the court
of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(A)(1), the time for filing a notice of appeal from the court of
appeals' entry of judgment shall be tolled," S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(5)(a).'
{¶ 20) EnQuip's application for reconsideration is DENIED.
(121) [T IS SO ORDERED,
MIKE FAIN, Presiding dge
r
. .. . . V, z y// MfCH EL T. HALL, Judge
(Hon. Thomas J, Grady, retired from the Second District Court of Appeals, sifting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
7A staff note states that an "amendment to App. R. 26(A)(1)(a) deletes language warning that an application for reconsideration did not extend the time to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court; effective July 1, 2010, a timely filed application for reconsideration under App. R. 26(A)(1) * * * does extend the time to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court under [former] S.Ct. Prac. R. 2.2(A)(5) and (6)." 2011 Staff Note, App.R. 26.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO Appx. 46 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT -12-
Copies mailed to:
John B. Pinney / Kara A. Czanik Katherine M. Lasher Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP 1900 Fifth Third Center 511 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3157
Matthew E. Liebson Thompson Hine LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1291
Christine M. Haaker I Terry W. Posey, Jr. Thompson Hine LLP Austin Landing i 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Dayton, Ohio 45342-4934
Hon. Stephen Wolaver Greene County Common Pleas Court 45 N. Detroit Street Xenia, OH 45385-2998
:df
"I'HE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO Appx. 47 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (On Forum Selection Issue)
OF
GREENE COUNT^.'
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Entered on February 17, 2009
Appx. 48 02/1$/200$ ^SD 9:57 PAx aA0i/07a
r{,^
IN 7'HF C;U[JRT ()P CUbMMU1Y PLEAS OF f=REE NIs Cf7UNTY, 0i110, CWIL D1'YIfiK1N
LNQUtP 7`Et'};N4LOGlES j Ca.ce Nusnbc'.r 2008-CV-1276 CjROUP, Iize., et alia, !'larntiffs, } Ji7d8e Stcpheiy A. Wvfae.er
vca.rstt5 } MiJ.-}V[(3RA i''ii3i1M A T3 U1^T3^}2 Z'YC'UN l'1=,.,CI^^IV()Gi,^ASS, 12n^3Z3_ pd5 & 5.x,1., etaIi^ } MIt^:I2S lNC'.`S Mt^'^'Io}V TtD b^'M3SS ^(31^ I ATI.1;8tF TC? STq'rf--A C:1.AIM Defendr^nts, ) Pi,AIN7°I}'°,,' ^N13 i7I ^ A^ "";NT3Y c Vel'sug
QA 'i1 C1-iNtal:,Ut71a.,, ^ CY'AND(lRP., ct a1ia, {'ountcrciaim- ^ 1?c:fcndants. )
`.a:.s. 11`111V 11VIJ+j,:N:j)".S
1 ot' 78
Appx. 49 FEB-1B-2009 09:51;AM From: ID:CaRAYDOtJ I-ERD F'age:001 R--93: UzflSd2909 968D 9t57 PAH Ja002/076
OPi!nxan oi;` tlte Court
'.Sonze cases t;tx tlac tutxi«m diligenc e 1'lic issue bvl.`crrL ihe C;aurt can bc statccl succinctly: Shoctld tltis case be tlicrl in Xcaiia, {)hio, or Vcnioc., ltaly? 't"13c: written eontratc:t at the heart of iite nartics' dispuxe contains a (?oyurn selccficarl clause. dt.ti )an1,rI,a6c. tlle plaintilfs argtte, permits tltc: cet.,c to be ltczra in the 13uckeye St-ate. '1`hc defcj)dants claim it naauclatcs t3e, cose mny only proCeed in thr N,(ost Serene RGpublic. 1'o give art idea u1'the complexity c>itiiat issuc, tha; Court oi3scrves tlte pnrtics ITavc displayed `:;t licrculea:» strength ol'liarens-ii ahility.''z :a`}acir souru•es, "from the Yiirir coriicrs of the earth they colne,3 the pcu-tie.g rei'ei-ri17g the Ccsttit in tEieir rnultifaric)ms pleadings to: 1. (7hirr .luri.tprtulence 3d; 2. the Itules of Civil Proceciure; the statutes of the St•ate of Uhiu; 4. decisions oi` the Ohio Courts of Appcals fclr the 1'sr^4 4cc<}nrl, Fourth, Ninth, and 'i"Caith Ap^,c:ll4lte Districtt; 5. dccision.4 of the Suprcnle Court of Uhicp; 6. the stateEtes nftltc Stite vf Flurida, 7. dc"cisious of thc; FIpric{a Courts a!' Appeals lbr the Tl7ird and raurth r)istric:ta; S. dLcisipns of tlie Supremc (votul +7 (` i'iorida; 9. dec:isious Of the United States District Courts fbr the Middle District of I•'laric#a, thc S i FYCrfCr v. Citv af Snv^nnrrh () 891), 8' £i;^, 397, 3+)g, 13 y.^. .t42. `I.aa,ir8ttotrr.Jc:OT.mnrr (":t),Ya, 18(1), 15fi.C".,ts.660,061 (No.8,411). WiTli;tm shal:espe.hrC, 7'hc Merdtanl of Vt rtics;, acf t1, sc. 2, I. 208. 2 of 78 Appx. 50 t=E,.9-18-2009 09; 52AM From: ZC7. C' 7RRYDON kFAD Pase:OM R=93Y 02/L8/2009 NED 9:57 Faat a®43i076 to. dtcisic,nx c► f thc lJnit:ed ^St'sfW C.Ourts of APix;a(,g tior the Secc>nti. lz()urtij, l.'iEth, Sutth, Seventh, Nintli, 7`cnth., ancl^-'levc;nth Circ:uits; 11. de..cisiuzis u1'the ;5ujsrisrnc Court cff'ttlc i!„itc d Statex; 12. thc sfatute` and chi1 (:ado of the i.tatietn Republic; 13. a decision of tlac Law Cnuri of (;cncAt-- and ticst the one in Ottawa Counly but 1.hc ita{ian L`,inoa; t4. decisic'ta.4 ot'the Corte cfi C'usya,zone, ;.hc $uprcxne c:atltt nf Italv;4 f S. tiyz (?eslcrBGment ota u)ntlict of laws; 16. a iz;gutui:inn of thc European 1;11lioEa; 3 7. tl4 e i3russc;ls Convetriion, a tre^jiy to lvhich thc ^:nitcd States of ,#rnerica is not a Pvty; 1R. nrtx:cc<#ings before the Wtti-Pd Xtitclicctttal Pmlertv' Urgadu-ration; at7d, most rmark-ahfy, 19. a dccisic>n of the Court of Appeals ot' L'easaillcs, FninLC, 'Che Cott;t is htatyihlLd by all thiS. lt is far inorc connplcx than the c= before the L)amrrstic Relations llivisic>rt of this Court lii...t year where an Tndiaa,! statutc s was at issue.v And macc astounciing thal3 tlrc 't:cent3v pubiisted cdsc rvhem a iJnitcd Nations convcntion was nrgxaed in nntnicipAl coun by a ciefcndant cited for driving without a Iiccnse,7 `t 1 lsnrnPa World Year Bcwk (.Ta:tnne Matser sr. cd. 2(W^) 2372: s 4a Act to Amend wd Cciciify ihe t:jw lRelating to Marria ga Antotig Hindos, Ar1 No. 21 of 1 of 1955 :svailahle as-Iine at fttlp:llinc;incocft.nic.in! (laxt a=ssed f'cb. ! 2, 2009). 455 (lfiozdu Marriaben Act "x c T'ur^srz v, t>c'rtmr {^eta, 1d, b744, -- tV X.2d ---, 200$ Vfw1A 50548641.?UON), Greettc C ty. C.1'. IVn, pG-t7[^-U2Ca2, ra'vcraed --• Ohio /tp^t.3d --_, ?UQg-t^lrio- 7 Scc: SYslu z t:'atstpos (IinaarillrHp C ty. h.`LG 2005), 149 C71 a Cntlvc ntyc^tt on Road Tst!'ti^ A ) e^ aio t^tisc.: d 7fi, 2005-Ohiu-71G4, 8^1 ^l.F.2d '2t; cititag Au ^us! 1 , tk'• 6, t3S 3 U.S.T. 30Q3, T.4 A ti. W. 2487, i25 22. This casc wts d;idcd b 2, 200S, Eitet only fsublished in the l-cbruary 2, 2009, icstte oY'the advance,}uctx. 3 vf7$ Appx. 51 FEB-18-2009 09 s DrAM! Fr om c ID: GRAYDDtd yEpp Pa se : 0t3;3 R=93;. 4zt18lZppg ^s 9:53 FAX EAC&/Q76 '1`Ile Cntlrt Can ealtt7athixc with the C,°nlor-4t3ca 5t,iiroinc C.:aaur( 3urls€.1; vvlua Pt7ttnci "tl,e diligence oi ccatnasvl has spread het'arc tts all `tlle law attd the Cicaspc ls' icazaching Va:l titc t)uesticatl at issueT's as well as itle Ncw,Jer;c}' j114lge-t3lsca a.sked to apiliy Itx^li^n law---who Sclt "like I alll runtling a marhtkttDtl with a fFty-kilv rtacl:.1mck f^t13 tit'Italian law ota rn)= l,t;c;k.',' 7°hc Cattrt is sute nlany of th^.sv staurczS have never in tlye n;jyt bccn citcci hcie. In t'act, i)lc C.httrt expecis thas is the first iimc ttlc {:cl-urt of Appeals of Vcrsailic:s 3ias heetl cited to (mry• Ollio court in ictl score a12 d six years ca!"statellcxad. And all tiais over these two $caatt:aces in a contract:. "7-his ngt-ecmcnt sh;iil he govcrttul by anci intct•parctcd i ►l accordance with t2z a ltaIimi law, "1°110 law Court of Venice will be conlpeteztt for any disputc:.",n There arc twu is3ucs. Fit:si, should 1tsliaat or Ohio law govern tlae constrltcstij)n of that lau8crage? Secortd, is E.he language choesng a fort,n-, permissive or mandatoly? The CoUrt is lcniinded clFthc.lurrrctWe v, .larndyGe-lit,•.s:'t strtrgglc over the cs^rmni,^n borcier of Maryland wtd $'onmylvataia, in which Chancciy-,-.H court tluver known Jiar the sioylnlicity of its procceciiztga°2-t)u'ew ula its 7lan.ds ait a case "of a Nature wor(hy the juetit:atut-c of a 12:caman senate rntlv:r than a ,ingle jla^ge..p" But t.his C.ot,rt is confident the pmycnt case is not lhcrt cxtrenlL and the Gnt•dian knot" can he euT. ,Ste/siterxr cg. C.'a. v, rfthcr.k (1927), 81 C'olo. 488, 491, 256 P. ]S. af^tancli i^. C.'iRibr®ur lnc. (.Maj^ 31. 2.(10.5), Ti_Ja SttPGr. Cr,'^tr, l^iiK.€.-t09Q2-04, 24ttS Wl, 13#14(a91, tit *4. Agsmcy Agreemeut, ' attatrt:cd a5 )i>Jaibii A to tlta 77rird Antcndcd Cotatplsistt, f kec! Jan. 7 tr, 2pQ9. :1 5¢c Charles L)lckms, t3l`.ik 1-inuse (iH52-53), ch. I reprinted in 3 The (?xfixd 1ll001•1tesl t7ichetis at luan4wa ib a ease •:ce, eaynItalicated t3,at no 3tian 4(JurnrJyce aliva knelw$ what it nae.ang, '}7ic p:,nies to it underyyand hm bex=n ohserved tttst na two €'.hancety luwycrs rn7n tatlC about it for fve it least; frut it dtaBt ,,a7WR1001 as t.b all the lxCmifia3'). See also mintttes witlxsa,l cmning to a tolt,l f3'i.rner•k t?taarciirrar.s^ifj^ h°ruA'e P. ('illaof Chul;rrn Fa/Lx (C:.t4.b, (1947), 148 Uhio St. 31, 34, 34 0.0..558, 72 N.L.2c3 751; 1996), 74 F.3d ls9^+, 7p1: ln ro r. Flvrian (.l:ut. 10, 29$5D. lst I]ist. ?ac f3tf, {31'C.'ty- Cm.efs. ry'frallBHrori Gtj: ►s: C-li308$0 & C-S3q881, 19$5 WL. ^'3fiti; staxt l992), 4t1t hitt Nn. 14 75, 199? WL 37Rtl0 {Gtep. J., dissenting), C.out1, v: (:iGsrxs Irre (f<•^, 26 fz St^ 1^iC{^^►t4, sapr.a, lyasaise^. F'enra 1: lvarl t3ratrftnor^ ((^:. t75p) ! Ycs SA. 444, 446, 27 R of t&ic (Inited Stat^ and tlsc Savcrit States, U.S. Gc.ulsa6 ;caf urvc J 132. See a1^ i rarektia^ K. Van l.undt,l3aries Wilfot•ct, 77)e Ma}maakcrx (1481),, Y 3'rofessiv:aatE N pa ,pg ( 7th ed. 1976); foltn Noble 131-184t and Mark Stci,c, Itow the .4tatea Got 7'ttcir Shapes (20€i7), 53. "r Sce •'hoanax D3111i°itseh,13ulfttnls's Tfrlythca[o,^y (Mo Appx. 52 l=E8-18-2009 09:52Ah1 From: ID: GRAYD3t•1 HEAD Page:004 R=93% q'LItgIZ9Q9 4d8J7 47 5$ PA7[ 0045IQ78 0311te seenns stppropritte-_-po, aacst "sal-:andon a! t hopc ye «i)o rixtc;r herc"-....hut t'cltPtcr Zh;st t3^e C`..s,ita-t is "ready io Ynouzlt to ihc stjars."'s . .. Previt>•u1,41y in "Euquyp v. 7"yc°ort" Ara /Ktaliun Gfas:srrtaker irs l;reerrc. f..'taunli,'s ['wr,t ApPresptiatc)y for this c^-Lsc, „I4xly is the cra(ilc oTl:uropt;an ca7tflic:t of Iaws ci(DCtriEte."ts 711rcc ix7ik;s Cr0ni the f'iave R,ivci°'s ca ►iflucnce with tiy,c G111C of Vcniu-m1ci sevcntcc°yl miles northeast Uf'lhe city wedded to the Sta'^-is the c4DPT111'2lli1G OrStlE1 DOII6 di P22]vc.18 it liCg in the region of Venetc>' and ttac prttvincc of Vete7ia,19 And in this cfty of 40,040,'-'o is the Via J.F. Kceiut:dy. 'llicre m.ay be found (he cafficcs of tlic le:td defendant, lycota 7'cckane3^;la^s, &x.1. (Arn "S:r.i." is a socreta a respr3n.ciba^16 I.irrututcr, a lintiteci liability corrapatray.'') Tycola is in the business of rnt.tking glass-iitaed clir:mica1 rctictony atid cqulpPi3ctit used by chctnicnl azid phaatxttzceuticayl RAit^iS r,.22 as Daulic, Divrate Cosnedy, "lnfcrno,' canto 3 1. 4 (a6a,xlon); ad. "Pl ,attrr cante 33,1.145 (sGsrs). ^b Solie Autor (ieerotns, ! ozrign Faw in C tvt! t,irigatjatt: A LUmpaivc and Fua3ctional Analysiy (2004), soctiotl 3.52 ut 237. See aLso Syuteon C. Sytnccaal' ides, WctSdy Collins 1sCrdnC ,4c Aithw T. Von ivtehm-n, (°onflict of Lawx: Anle:tuGerc, t:oonWa#lye, SSti®rrsatftavnl Cases and M;nainfs (i'99R) 6. ",SCC'1 be Gatilernan's May,ar.i,w l.ihrhry, 13e;ng a CGzs_sifu:d Gollectiary of the Oaief Cwrtenis of t1le Gentleman's Magazinc frant 1731 to 1$6$ (C;uottls: l,atue.nce t,orunEC e(l. 1884) 232-233, See sisa WiEiimtt Wcrrdsworth, "Orf !hc 8>alinckion of the Venetiatn Republie" (1802), ). 7-8, in I Vdillittm Wc>rdswvtth, €'4cniz, ttt Two Vultimes (1$07) at 112 ("^sfic tool^ sinto laerscif a m,^stcfShe razust cspoaisc the cverisa%ting sea' ). San Dona di Piave," Meriitnn Webster's Gs*graphir.xl Dictioaiary (17anief I. Hapkne.s ed, 3d ed. 1997) 1139 and "1'13vc RivCr,° id. at 929. c;ec iilsn "San Dolki di Piave," S' roGyclprm cciia Rritt.^ ►nica: Mic;ropaedia (15t11 ed, 1974) 95; and' San f7caaa da PufvC," 3 Goluanbia Gaze[teQr of the Wcirl4! (1,3,aul 13. C:Ufuaf ed. 2d a3. 2{H18) 3372. ^a id. `0 3 Columbia 4'far.ettec:r at 3372. zt '1'ravis A1Cit;libnr Wurti & wlotaicg I.arr:er, Livi81g, Stiulyiue, aiul Worki.lip i1a IiFtty: &.vcxytliislg Yoe! ha;cd ts, Know to Liva La Doica Vita (2st ecl. 2(103} 299 and Kate C:aelisic, Wnricing and Living italy ('2008) 256-'2.57. See also "Lioriiieei fiabitityco}yp,rny," httprl!cn^vik'ry^edia,arglw:lsll( itnltCd^it:^bilitv conzpany (la.5taacccsscd Fcta. 12, `at)0U)and"Scarfctg a responsabil,ta f ianitata," tsdtp.t1it.tvikipedaa.e^,^yw;kilSt^c »rc.gponsatrifita lianitatr (I.tist ac;coLscd Feb. 12, 2009): .,ltimeaidcd Complaint," fifcci in Mctttgottti,yy Ctiernty on Aug. 6, 2008. ¶3; "Answar mf Tycon 'f cuusglass S.r.l. to Amended Chmlrlaini aiid Autcnclcxi Gaexiirionaf Cctnntercl.xuns and c'.crndiriasraE 1'liird-party C:otnpiaiiFt;" fihed in Monti;Vrneay Counly on Sept. 4; 2008, 15. ror dataiis on types of cheanical reactors 7rad ltow thcy 4YUrk, sec "C.ftcnurtil reactor," 4 Mctlraw-l•pill Cncyc4opcdia ol'Scicnco & 't°cxGnnloo (2007) 42. 5 of 78 Appx. 53 FE8-1B-2009 09:52AM From: ID'GRAYDM! yERD 1'a9e:00y f2=93Y 42/1812409 ^D 9:58 ^AX fa046/478 t.;luss 10) In t;lasr, said Dr. Johnsrna, is "colactmalecl osv many conveniences of lifc.* [anci] agrc;a# part of thc huppiness of tlte Nvorid.•'23 °llte item, "c;eittral **'w to every aspect o!' caw• tivcs,,''a WA:: the prcyc3ttc:e of' the t-irst niint2factory isterblished by F.ngiish edloiiists in the Netv Worfc3.z5 A millennium befnre those w4>rks wcrc established in 1604, gfaSs wax already being niack iie:ar Venici;.''6 This was loiag before M.3^zt9it Cart27 anci cvcn befiore the F-orl Artcient people were 1•Suilciirtg .rNnt Mattnd in tlAia state. `•I`01f gtcat ilnporunce aniong.st fli` 1-n-opc.rties of gta.tisw:n•e is irs power tu wiihstanci the action ul` clecaniposing and cIis9ntcgratittg a9erals. Glass usett far cot]tatncrs is o13.en stahjected fcir long periods to the actions of tlte liquid it holcis.`°29 G13ss linLcl vlasc:ls arc table toa hasadlc acicis and a1k:alis szhicli wotild destroy an unlined met;tl t°uaalc.3" '1'yccm'x equipnicnt is fined uvitli boroailicatry glass,3' typically fc'ttr-fft.hs silica (SiCIL2) at'd onc-eigi'tlt boric oxide (B2(b).3' 'T'his inaterial is highly re.tiistattt to chemicals and able to withstand :;1>arp changes in tcmpet:ature that would shattc:a° other specie.i of gltiss." Tlit. ►s it is ideal lbr "chemical 1abmratUry winc, cook ware, and S1n17101 JOISnSbn, '1'Ue Rambler, No. 9, Apr. 17, 17.50, in i.13te Works of' Sninuc! Johna,;c A mcrican ed. 1846) ?(i, ►te, l,,1-0. (3d (;;omplete `a Alan MaCfarlaise & (rcny MtaBtiit, Glttss: A Wt)rttll.Yisiniy (20U2) 3. p` Williatn S. lillls, Glass: Fcqm thL rimi Mirror to Cikcr Optics, t8e Story trf the Sub:titancx: That Ghanc-ed the World (1998)25. "° C.3. i'hiltaps, Gbss, 179e t+.tir.ccle Makcr (;?d c^d, 1+348) 15; ..Gtass,., 8 L-ncyclnpa,;iiia Firittanicit: MacrnfLiedta (15th ed.1y7A11M, See t 1297) 25 );:dw. 1, c1t. 29 (c.anfirmasitnt of cisartcr sigriGd in 1215). See Susan L Worxlward & 3erry N.1,icDnn,lld, fndian Mounds of tltc Micldfu ()1lit) Vallev: A 1^:^^athworks o!' !hc Adena. Tlc>pcwcll, Cola, ;ntd Fort Ancient PeQplc (2ri cd. 11002) 130 (SLrpcntGuidc Mlrntnd to Mounds built in :uidfhe F:leYentlt C:etsfti*ry). "9 i'• W. Ilodkit► dec A. Ccauren, A 7'nxtbook qrEalsss recluiolagy (1r-5) 51. !'1)illilks, Glas,;, '1'1ic Mirr)e14 Makcr * 36$. 2009.See) "The t•..ti)ar;s Lininga" al troitly:^hvww,i}^m^ttclmoglasS,coitil'rflf!3CSCitllvwlgstnahl.lltn3 (}ast accessed Feb. 12, 1'19itlips, f`:IRSS, "Ilx Miracle Maker ai 45_ t•iararld Tlewrnan & 1t.1. €:l>m•leston, An lllus ►ratcd i3ictiunary oC Cln.cy (1977) 45; "Glass," I Vnn 1`Icstr,rnd's Scientific i~ncyclcficJix (91h s;d. 2002)1630;119cGinw-Hi1t Etcyclalx;dia of C:hLmisiry (Sybil l'.1'arker cd. 2d ed, 1993) $37; L)aniel J. Slxriwcli, Glass A to T(20p7.) 48. C> vf 7i3 Appx. 54- FEB--18-2009 09:53A1`1 From: ID:G2qYDtlN 1EA7 Paoe'006 R=93i l8/2009 oarsD 9:59 pa.x a007l07B pharmaceutical V,Zre?'34 bcc^nt.SO itS t'CSi5t.317t`.C "cn:gurGs titL` aht;oltTfe plirity pi' the products" contained within.i35 .1'hL faIl]iiiar t'yrc.X t7rarld Of g1av5 pots and pans is this Itlttteri of gia-13S is also tl`3C'.t'f in oj3tic8^•:::tS in the 20E)~irlc{7 illirrt}r CDI'lI'84; t(:1esco(76 :kt 11/i +ptlilt pd1t#Il)i3r.37 By bondilig glass to tlgc n,ctal vcsscl, Tycoig clafl„s to liave the best of botlt wurlcis: tanks "as.5trnog ;ts Steel and as inert, cshefntcaliy, as glass.""t ?'r)u f.^4saY 7i'1/ Ihe d'Iwvc? r•s GYtlhar.re ftScur4yc,vr{ Robert W. taaui 7cf.fcry L. NaiclLAt were tJlc sales rcpresctitative'; f.Ur Tycc^>t, S.p.A. Ucginnitig in 1989. The Rlaidcli Dat.cr inctarporatc:d lltt;ir btlsiryess; this kwaIne Enqtiip 'I CChrl{,lvgaLS Crfsufi, Itxa., which is a 1^lrsricla corptyratioti 1>1wci in tlae S '1'ycan "!°cchne>glass, 8.r.l. i-s the successor to a company 4'urtned by the 1997 n3crgcr of Tycon, S.p.A. and 'l`CcianogUss. S.p.l1.-19 (An "S.p.A," is a >vGrekr per aziani, a joint sitxk cotnpany.4^ 'I'ycozi is a--ulx,-idzaYy of Rohhijts ak Mycrs Italia, ti.r.l. And it, itz tttrn.. is a sulx;:idiat•y c3fRcaU6iny & Mvers, Itic., an Ohio corporation headquartered in f,rcclac County, Robbins & Myers also owns Pfatidlm•, lnc. }'fat:{iltir is a f3elauare corporatiQn bascd in Roc;hester, New York. jt sttpplie,s the clicmiatl iY7dtlsta'y the saY»e gfa„s-Irncd cquipi-Ait:nY as Tycan. Thanks to its subsidiaries Tycc}tr iuid i'f'audlt;:r, Rolshin,s & Niyers claims to "havc the jiunyber nrxt; worldwide nzaritct husitaota i°vr quality glass-lined reactors iutci Nlurabc t^esSci5.>'`II ;` 1 Van Nostt-atxl's at I630. 35 k.t:. Waine, "Llaemic,^t Cilassware,,' ctr. 14 in CfG,.Ss: A I-tasadbu(ik (!. Hcuai;c Dtckx(m rxi, fgS !) at d'1lis, Cb Eass at 49-S0, Ncevman & Cllar6catem at 254, #ut: 14 Sca Frances ltagers :u)d Aii:ar: Bmrd, 5000 Years of Glass (New rcv. ed. 1948) 260-272. Feb.tntro#uc9ioai," 12,2009}. oaa'1`yc:Dn's wcbxife at 1ritp:/lwvrw.eycolttecluaagt^;x.cotn/ingCtisrr^lasy/intrnd^aZiotae.httsa (t,^^t ac,x;mr^ "Amended C:.omp)auit," J?. Doart Stahl dr Kareti Kelzttetielt, +4l,tm:viations DYlcctcsrv (10th cd, 2001) 949 anr3 Vincem LdWards, Staiian-iltglitih f3uxinemss Lilossuy (1997) 4S< 5ca: yb) "Itaint susck company," 3utP;lictt.wiki'tcdia.nr^r,xskitJsria3r stock cc't^i^ty;^ (last :iccts:sui r-eb, 12, 2009) 5rxi Scvirt.a IrCr azie}ni,," http !lit.wikipedta eyre^ tirikilgU^1ete^ wziuni (last :ae4essw Fcb. 12, 2009): , at ilnbbiuas & Ndyets, Zrlc;, Attatual Rc,-port co the O.S. Securities and t;xctatu ►gc C'oxnmissioYY on t'arm 10-K tbr the Ys:xi• 2009).F.ndad A6Ig. 30, 2008 (Oct. 2$, 200$), at a, available an-lacto at http:i,'jalvest.qrrs;9ations.mhn.cxym (last acccssri rcly, 12, 7uf78 Appx. 55 FEB-38-2009 09: S3AM FrAm: Ii3: CaRAYt}tlN HEAD Paae: t337 R=93% ^z^ta/zoos a*ED 9ts9 BF1R ZflCS/a7e t^^(' ^.;!)litJ'urt !)i51^utt< The Naidels ltac€ a tzasitte^,N r4laiionslaip 'vitlt 'rycnn for a decade heforc itohbins & Myers acquired it. 't`!ic cottxplaint 'Illegs:s Robbins & My"s---wftich at ihe tin'c it purcItaxcl Tycon aPr^adrF. owned I'faudter ussurcd 1°<'nqttip Nit T°ycsan and Pfaudicr FvcSuld cvaitinue to cnntpete. 'I'hus Enciuip and Tycon siped an agreE,iatent in 2001 to alIuw Enquip to be the exclttsive 8alcs w-preu:ntative fnr 'fycmn in Nutlll AlYteric.a;-the llniteci States, C;}nada. and Mexico"l-"^,_and the I3a12aa-Atrs. 4' linqtrip represented °!'yecan in tlta; sa)e of n.uttierotis kinds of quips-nes2 t used in tlie cl3ctnicril businews: aeactun. izaixers, and tanL% alntxg with fittitzgs, nipittg, and acx°:eysorics 1or this cquip,aacnt.4' Enquip was tt' yt.tbntit orders it t•ecei< 'ne pteadings Glaiata the cor ►tract w-,js the subject tp ne90ti3tion. 8ut tl2cre is no evidence of iltis ir2 the record ycl. '1'he CoLt.rt Abst;rves the c0S7trJct, sut}mitteul as BtZ Cxlsifyit to t.hc complzaint, was prc:pured by 'fycan in Italy on its iettrnccad nnd was subtnittui to Enquip in Florida fnr signature. `!'yeon's lettcr transmittiny tltc t:vxatract to Enquip for signature is aisu attaciied to tigc catnpla.ittt> The cc3satxac:t is in English. 71te details of vwlaat trai2spit-ed over tlle Ii(ie of the contract arc: not clear. What is certttitt is that in 2007, I'ycon wrote to Enquip to tt:mninate t[te contract.Rr' •i!`ycon claimed Enquip ltati '`z Dot'endattts appear to beli`vc McxiCia is tacN ui Ncsrfh AmcriGa, w°itistg of °'TJc+rth Amcrira. Mcxico, 6r ttte. Rahain;ss,° in "Raply in SuAPon of Defendants` Motion for J'udgttic-ltt on thc I'icud'ua&a," fli ed in Me>nttcxtterY C:UtmtX on Uct. 30, 2(Hts, at 4. Cr. "Mcxico," Columbia Encyclopedia (I3ari)ara A. (`}tcrnow & George A. Vbll:,i Cdy. Sth ed. 3^l3} 1762 ("rcptablic x s* sluuthern) N" Americsa"). ,a "At;ens,-y Agrectnent" attachcd as P.xIul)it A to "Tliirei Amcndisci Ccympl,7int." a<..Agency Agreentont," Appendix 1. ®s °hgerac): Agreement," Iltlicle 4. °ti Leiter of taazio Lanreri, Mantigi,ag Darector of Tycon Tccltnpblass, S.r;t., Ca Enyuits Twtuialogics Ciratrp, tnc,, Itenc 28, 2007, utaefmd aslsx]zibit 13 to "Third AmLnded Ctnnpi,3lr>4.'r 8 of 78 Appx. 56 F°EB-18-2009 09:5341 From: III:GRAYp03.t FEfD Pase:008 R=93= 42/1812409 wsE) 9:59 PAx 0C49l078 inzprnpcrly entered itito arrangemenfis witll one of•l'ycort:s cnrnpetitors, filili tf to abide by their tcYms t}f tlkCir tontl•act, alad c:ngaged in ac(s "inu)tllpatible Nvidz cffecCivc btJsinc;;s cc,d'pcrtatitta^,"^7 l nc7uifr and thL NaideJx suctl. 'Ihe N:sidets were ll^,rtzcs becaaase tltcv intendec3 to dissc-jlvc Encluip and thcy would be the guusc.ssors to its a4sets. (`I'lycy have sincc c:h4119c:d their minds a"d Enquip c:c)xttinucs in bu,^;iness.) Ln9taiP • succl for brGacIg of ec)nn'@ct' failltre to pay pa} Jnitney owul, tortiaus inY.erCerincc, and fiaud. 'l7te chliltas sveiti madc against'I'ycon, 12obbuts & Myrra, Rt:bbins &Mycrs ltadiuand l'f-Zudlcr. E-nquip e.luinis it is owed cotnenissions for salcs: th:,t its ct,ettract wa ^ Wrongfc,lly terminated; 4tnd RrrbEiiz}s & Myers iattt;rl'ered rvitit its relationship witlt Tycon by stcer' Irag husiness it t;encrntccl i'or Tycon to 1'.fitudlcr, thus dettying Enquip of comsnissiotzs. Encluip asked for at least $t, 150,{}00 in ela ►titsges, 1"ycott liled a ptesdi^'g whtch answered the complaint, countcrclaitnc^l ^.t;ailrst the plaintif.^•s, t^nd filed a third-party cotnplaiiat. "be Cnutt struck the last bcCau.se it w Pfi.ittdter's couaase„l have sigigcsd 111nre rcccitt pleadings aS "Specially 1^.pl^carilag" for those defendants. 7'hc° Ciiu1T ob.^rves that in the initial appwranctny nt'ati three•---thcir :answcrs-counscl daLS not claim to fsc "Specialfy AppeaTaag.>, Tycan nnd Pfaudlcr have refiled clainzs agaihst QA Techtlologies ("orloaation, a t,,tarija Loz^aratitbii; .1Txtl brnuglit in hVC} llei3r parties: Karl ^^c r^, xttlArin, a 1(oSidt;UC of Wiesbaden, [icRYI12ti7y; and `1'1tOletec, Gn'bH, a German crarpar•atiatx. (,A, "C;mbN" is a Greee11.3a;1icrfi nrit IiesehrRt7IC/Cr HnfhrtTbx, an "Incc,rporate(i Iimited liability c a;td `N"0a•dcr Grynfin g€tiirdPa ►ty PkCenc)ant QA •rcclmoJagics's Motion io striltL Cuntint;cnt I'hird-Pn;iy Camp[aint 4Df rya,nn y`cchnOglaxx; Uisntissinm All Claims Apinsl QA •i"Muiolot;ics, cvarifying fiar iias Nurpos;s uf Civ.R. 54(8) 7')t= ts iVtr Just 12U4ca11 t'or a Rahlv uf an Appmt, atxi Decl.vlq TJtk 2001), Utdcx a citiitg b`tata, ex re1 Jrau.tsfzsa^ et$IdM%Cfp:41 CY. elrJ'alfAkJJdi C't.Y- filral Appealable ()t-dcr," filutt Jnn, 2, iY.F..2d 629 and Civ.R. 14 (A), (1971), 26 Ohio App. 2d 113, 51 0:().2t9 245, 269 17oan 5tah1 & Karcn Ktt•ra;cdich, Ahiareviatipn.s Dirccwry ( f Ut1i ed. 2001) 4,52. 9of78 Appx. 57 FEB-18-2009 09:54AM From: IDsGRRYDON I-EAD Page:009 R=93% 02/18/2009 VED 9:59 z+Ax Z10i0/D78 Techtpc>fogicsa 4atd tn be cc)ntj,ollsxi by the NaidcEs, i-ias worked tYitit 'T'Itaietc. ,c and t3ergmsnn to harm their interc:StS. '1'yccrn .aztcf ('iaudlcr ttllegk; titc Naideis, Enquip, QA, (3ergniannt and 17taletec Vvcrc in lc;tgtic «;itlt Lcttu.4 3Vtixcr.s, a Ctaint-->e ccntjryany Itot a P3rty to tiiis lawsuit.--ttot yc1 atayway tu d4tmagre their businrsscs. 'TJxc case cytigina3ty Avas 1iled in the Ciyurt of C'om»ion I'letts of i~vf.unta;ornery Coianty hut tra.t3si:erred to this f'catut. In t[t,r weclcs since the case appeared oEt its duckex, tllc Cnuzi lzas dealt with aplethr:ra of subsidiary issues 1tid in tbis oe•dcr c}eals with the ni4tit?ti to distniss filed by Robhins &Myers and the rcyttt',Yta by )Slaintiffs and defendani.s ('nr juclgtncrtl on the pleadings. Their inotions c:oncem tiie frsrtin7 setectinn clattSG apd p,-gnciplcs of ccsrnity. 7'^i c f`rrxetlrrral Ilrstnry B ttt .^' tr4t, tite Cotirt dutifulty records the procedural history of tgle cssc in great detail lzec:ausc it iti ctistomary: ("C;uStnm qjfls tnc to 't:i What custom witt,^, in all things shnuld wta du:'t,"so) 'l7se iz-ves in this c:asc origina}iy were broualtt in state cautt in FIarida in Septentl•,cr 2007 with a somewhat diftet'cnt cast tyf charttctm.. Enquip and thc Naidels sued Robhans & Myers, Pfaudler, ;tnd twcn cuett€ives af' Robhi3is & Myers: Peter Wallace and Cary H7-cwcr. Tycon and Tdobbins c^C Myers Italin were not dcfer ►d:,nts. That litibatianst was removed to fceIerryl c011r1.52 13cx+ausc of differing accuunts in the pletadings53 and a concer» nvcr possible issues of cvlEatt. =rd.l Lstuyspc[ and re:s _jttdicata, the Court i>rdercd the parties tti file a report on what exactly h-mtspirrd in 5t1 Vdiflksnt Shakc.slrcarc, C;oriolatttis, act 11, sG. is, I. 124-f 25. g' .17cr"e1 r. f+^r{Pu sa r,, SarXxota t ty. C:rcuit Ct. Case 13o> 7-007-C:A-() l^cagp.he. tilcd ac.pt. 17, 2007. IV14itc4 V. ff'afluCa, M.J3.T'!n. No. 8:07-cv-QI827, t'ibecl Oct. 9,2007. 4a Cf Meutorandunt iet Suppart ttt Llefettctanil" C Appx. 58 F®-18-2009 09:54AM From: ID: GfRAYC)€JN W-pD Pa9e' 910 R--93 % 02/18t2009 BTED i0:00 FAX 1401z/o7s Floricla.'" The rcfxnt xtiacht;si all the filirags tnnde in the Florida c t rulings vvcn: t2Yadt; by tbe Floricia coLUts. Siatlult:tncUusly rvit3t tllc N7urida case, tficrc was skinnishing 1}ctwc:c"t ttlc pat-ties bclore the World liltcllcctual Prvperty ()rgmtiztttion over the itifcrnc;t domain "wwKr.tycctn.c.om.'.s`' `l"!at case wis dec:i(ied twv days afi:cr the ptc)ritia c:^.^;a; was ciisnxi;;sed. Six PTk)nihs later a new j^NIV512it was brot[& in MpYlt,(,;t'tllcry Cctunity t:mmilion 1>Icag C0u1t.17 Jt xvas chosen 1mause, during the 3iti; c7f thc contract bctwectt Lnquip ;)nd '17ycan, Robbins ^'z MyCrs hiHl its 0ffl(;cy in the KettCritlt), Tower in the City of Dayton. 1.;Tit.]ttlr claimed venue w1.5 prOpGr i17 Motit.gornLry Count:y kc:ausc (I) Ro}sbitis & Myers was headquartered thc:rc;ss and (2) both '1yct:n itrxci PfaudIer did busit)ess in the cnwnty.-"9 But unhcknowrtst to Enquip, )tobbit2s & llyers had reic>c<°ztcd to Greene Ccrutlty in August 2007. Its new officcs were on phtn: Street ►n Tlte E'arc:c4a dc.vrlc>ptnent in the City vi` 13c:avercreek, ' a coupic hundred yards cast of the Mot)thwzazcry-Urx ene county 'I'llat lncation has a"f3aytnn" niailing a.ddrm despite being withirr Grx catc Coausty; this wa.s antzthcrm-t,on the ^^ctlt was heDetght in fvlorat'gOmeiy C:ounty.(" The Naictcis asked to he distrsisscc4 &om the sui1., '!'hcy had deeitled aiat to dissolve tltc;ir carnparty.faz But bccattsc csC the opposition of tlaa detendanW";-wi`io hztvc made cotttatcrc;iainas s4 "Order itcquirini; tDac t'arait 4.tointt Ffte :s Y on 9})e plocicfa t,i#i^tiebs) a^riSing I^rOrn !s sue5 Raised ia 711 01-5c,.• fiiccl 1zm.. 3,2009 Report ►s „Jtsim ltct,urt on #T)ssritla 9.atigaLion,- ftled ,Iun. 23, 20Ug. 'i' Sec k'tf1MllJcn°•r"ar .^,p.,f. v, l:nr1rrlP 7crbn0l0gics(;rtWP, Tirc. (Dec. 7. 20t}?), W.r.PA Arhitratian aayci Mediatinn Ctr. C:asc Nn. D2007-i477, availal)le or:-ti,ee at ittip:/,'www.taipo.intJ:tttaetenfdcmi: (f ast acccssec! fielr. 12, 'tX37). ►ins/alaaisionsdht,nU7,007/rI2t107-i477.htgnl % I^rqrr;p %ccfrmvPngi^s CJrou/r, l^ac. v. lycpri Te^{^rg•lasc, .^ r 1., Munti;otttetv Cty. C.P. C^se Teo. 2{f0$-CV•59 Amcncicd Coat)plautt," fitast in Niontgomsry Caanty on Aftg. 5, .^008, 16. 92. Id.at°334. ", 'Plahatitt's t7ppnsit8nn tU Defindaut Kvbtrins t& Mycrs lnc,'s Motio,a for C.hant;c t)f Ver,jlet ° ta1Cd in Montgomai-y Cotnaly on Atis,_ 22, 2008. at ?, 4ee atso C3rccnc Caenty f:isgin= and C"rreeaie Connly Atrd â Ohio t2006i, 13caac;rcrssck inset, brid sqnare G-l. tctr, Alp of CiresIV Caiuaty, fvr 1d. 4 7 "Pfaiuriffs Motion ta Ch•Qi) Partic:;.° f.f)Gd in ivlantgmax.•ry Crn,nty on AUg, 6, 2(0$. 11 of78 Appx. 59 FEB-18-2009 09:54AM From: 1D:taRAYDON 1iFAD Fase=011 R=93 % 02r18/2009 atw^t] 10s Oo pA4 a012/Q7B agaiszst thcni-; lite Mo:ilgolttcry C:c>tutly Judt;e denied tlsc:it' rcilue.st5.64 Oeiandant,5 fi9ec} for a chan,6,e of vetlue." WliiIc thc: pf,3in.tiffs izzitiai}y oppU%eci the niotion,"(' rcn stgri:ed order to trantifcr the case Ni Fls C1tltt'c.'`tl in November to avoid any ftlrthCg Ejt)13S t if![t s Y1bK7Stt. YC11ttC ^17 The C z5e :irCY!'CCI in titis t::otirt on Ucc:e.rrti'rc:r 2, 2008. A .g[udy in M®llaasa /.?j^aC./tC.e I3ecau4c cf the muliittlde of motions the Court izas cola.5idt;red snd ruled itpotz, the cqgurt wislies to nYake a record lbr its ovrn bctictit, It is a time and motiolt stucly----,thougit jlot tlac sort with wttich L•'rccleric.k Witzslaw'1'aylor would be fJmililr.0 'I1x: parties filed a Joint Status Report on the cast; that tiar; Court Cound very hellriijl .^`' !t 5etnlmari;ctsd the ca,se and detailed all ti}e motions wl2ic:h were petl(iing at the ti)ne of the tlanSicr. TI1is 'wa.s aec;ompatiied by a tItrcc-rint; hinder ;;uhnlitted to chambers in which aJf tlac ()perativC p)c.t3din&ti were organized so that atl hriets trn eacii 1a7otian were u[7ited sc:yuctztially. It has pruveci nl(ast ctsnveniet)t, It made the C.;t,tert's,lob in c{taltY7g with this czsn7plic;ated case and the welteY' of pending ntotinns muell easic:x'. ).'he binder wnt;}ins pleadings that are twc> and tane-h 7'he t::o3art is gl-ate±'txl t°cir this aid to its Svorlc and the parties are to be commended. I7ic 3oint Status Report noted thL cight mot.itins pending at tttiat tiYne and t1,L brieficig upon thcm.70 vj "0cfcnciants' C}pposition to !al:iindil`s Motion to iaropa I'gnie,," filc[9 in Ma,rtt, ,umcry t;otFnty, on Aug. 8, 2t)t)9_ "C)rciw^r pnd Fntry 13enyinp, t't^isatitts' Mutitnt to Drop J'atYics." likxi in M'cantg,rrncr,/ t'rsuntry on tkt. 2, 2008. °^ "M^tia[Y uf 9}rfcndant iZotsbiats ^r M}ors, lnc. Vcx-Clr,angcoi' Ver ►tac,,• filed in Montt;omery tinuaity on ^t:g. 8, 44tJK, aeul "Momnrnndtasn in SaMeart of Motion of po(ondaiws to 5tny C.^^tain 17isexsverv t'end'ntg Rcsotuti4n ut i Mcttic3n1." filed itt:Montgomaxy t'.catmty on Sept. d, 20q$,:YI 2. ►treshotd , "PlairstifPs Oppositiott to tkfrnd:tnt Ftobbins &: iMy^crs`[sl hlciti(xf Yc) C,![any;c Vutnc." fited in tNontt;otnery County 4n A:ug. 22, 2008. ^"Agrem3 Urdcr't raessfeninF the Case to Greene County," fitcci in MsHatgontcry Connty on Nov. ! 3, 2008. Scc. D;aniel Ncisor2, "I rcxlerictc V,'ins)oaso 7'aylor," in 21 Aiticxican NaticnoaD t3io6r.atshy (lcrttn A. Garraty & Mark C. Carnesgen. ctis. 1999) 372 azyd Appx. 60 F'EB-18-2009 09c54A1"! From: TD:GRFiYDON HEAD Pa9e:012 R--33: 02/18/2009 wED 10:00 Fxsx 0013lOi<8 "fl7c Cczurt has resolved six oftl'Ey,^ eight tttQtaonS alTd this c,rder resolvcs tkzc twa rem;t:iliirt,g, 'i"hc C,'cttrrt will tyrielly c;Aplaln the (n'(2er4 it has already e7ztcrg d. AccOrsling (() dLiettdattts, f,snquip actwed each of t#2ettl "with 31 ntutabcrc;d intea(,gatorsc5 ti7)cluding c3istinet sublrirts, (so'f titc trtai nunaber z.5 5ignif)cant:tylti;;!)rx), 61 mluests ftar prcydaiction and 72 requests for adinissiuti **.['.f]hc 33urcien t:n wllcct this axtatet•iat frcam d(fr,en, of 7H)dTVfdL1lS in at teaat live digLrCi)t bt3S9ne% I()t:atlQtlS ()i) tNVU Cu.Uf.inLl)ts Witl tX, ettQYnaoct;s I7efcndant5 clainicd the iraatezriats reclue,stcd ivili he voltunitiott,, asnountiJn.g to "tcr>:; cyf th(usands, if not fitx)cfrc:d5 a>S'thvusands ofpage5.,>^ Because the Court's ruling on the ligtutn sctocticial clause of tItG t:tnck;rly'tngy coniract rvould deten7un(: wh4tht:r this case proceeds titiy filrihe;r in Greea)e (';nuaaty :xnd possibly iiegate the ti,tttc, labor, and rncaney expettdecl in canying out discovery, defet)dztnas ''- 'MMion oFt^A 'reChno!ogies Carpot^uti(rn tn Siril(c Conting41 ent'i7tird 1' S.r.l. and for Ilisaniss,al ai Tttird Party [7ct'cnEtstnl," filed in 1ontgomery^ ^^ n y S^,^3 denied'I'3con's cCfa,is tu tile ;t ^! 2t(1g^7 e Z,"t Earicf in qppcas9tinn: "t:h-tfet• Denying Defendant Tycctn'1°0;heu>81:tr Altou the I'teadnag (;sptinncd 'Special Appca;ancc af'I"ycan 7:ecttnopl:esti, S.r.l. to Qptvo,e Motion,^'s Motion of QA to 7'e=hnologies Corpointiors ti) -Strike Co 2009. ►xfilioala! Third-P;t(nr Cotnplaint' I.o &; pcemej 1:"it,e•d{" 5l*4 Jat). 2, J. `°YteiEitit?S M(atiot) lc,r I.;xtemsRan of Time for RCspwuiing tra IntCrrogatotycti 4itd i'3octtment Kcipzot of ii.obbiaist.)efendant Robbins & Myors: Inct:," fticd in Montgouiery County on S(:pt. 22, 2()US; ""rttositic'n ofDct'enctant & Mycrx, lnc. to plaintifl's IVI(tiinn For t3atens°son of'ritnc," filed in MctnttacnCry C-suttty on Set,t. 23, 2008; "Reply Mca)torartdum in Sttpport of 1}taituit'fs Motiot) for E;xtensionn c,f Tiane for 1{espuaxf,rag to ltobbins & Myers, Inc.'s fiisaxrvcry; " tilcd in Montgornery C:ouztty on Sapt. 30. 2008. 4^ "Ytaintif?'s ]vfotio,t to Strikc cnd far 3uriginent ot) thc I'te:uiings on !7c fLnscs nf Tatitmstart.^r Yorietn atirt Gontitv," lilCd in Mpr ►tl;omcxy CntnUy tua Scpt, 23, 2009; °tksCenda>zts' Cotatbitled (I) M(stinn for Jtuigntcaat t'tt tite I'feadinlY+ imid (2) C?ptaosition tat P1;intitt's Motfon to :staTkc and for lt7 Appx. 61 FEB-18-2009 09: 5Sb" Fr am: Zp: GRAYDON FEAD Pa9e:013 R=93; 02/18/2009 WBl) 1Qt 0f. FAx ^0141Q7S asked tJte Cnurt ttt stay disc:overy.-' The Court did acy.1 4 Tlae Ct)ili"t in t11G -saiTi(! EDrdfr•r r7114c) gralifc"(l a f•cqttc;st by );snrjtiip tt9 C,'^tend ^tile for ciiscover°y requc.,ts.75 Tywn itrtpleacied a third-party delifz d:int, QA 'I ci;hncslcagics C.1roup.7{' 'llte thixd-part} wrrs.pi jUri;di4:tiOtt, c01tlityj,fU17ltn rlUn CUt7ivtnCtd.s, lack tf#'stii?Jc6;t-matter jurlsdictic9n„jkad insUtliUiency of proce.tis--being detiiei, "1'hc Cctttrt struck thc: thirct-party ccrmplafllt ttputI QA 'I°cchirtolngics's nlotion7' because '1'yccan failed to allege QA 'iccllnologtes would be li,ble to 'i'yccrn for thc clainzs made against Tycon by Fnquip.7e The C.'.otfrt ct~tEified there was tYo just cause ft>i- delay o1' an appcral7g and t7aade it a fit%tji appealable order so QA TecluauingiLC; mi^Iat have fitlality to the Iiti,Ratiotl ifa a few weeks-rather thata whenevcr tJle rest oftliis c;ase; miglat be ccnc Defendants asked te,zve to fltc a brief rc9ardi"1g ^Cc7rutx) sclecticsn which exceeded thc laage Iiti3it in local rulc.s.sa The E'oufi grat:ted this.nf 1' •`Motian ol Delsndettts to Sfay Ce>rtain Flixoovery P¢:tuiing Resoluucns crPTitreshUdc# Connty oti Sept. 4, 2008. motiuns,,' filed in Montgomery ""('.frcler Gxautiatg DefLndant'j; Mertiolt 10 Stxy C;ertain f7iscovs.ryry Pendutb Iiewuatioit of °i'Irreshold Motions, tiJ^al)tntg I'laintif3s' Motion i'cn' l:xtczisiou of '1'inic fifr Itesponding to intcrrn g.-tt.ot3es .and C)octutient itcquc^^t.v of t'cfrsldznt Ttobt>irts & Mycrs inc., Srayiing Further I7iscovary thitii the Court ttulcs t,Ipolt Pendinb Motions for Jrudginc,2 f on tfic PlmKlings on Corsem Selection, nrelerin^, All t'anic.s to File a Report c)n the Siatas of Discovery Within 21 f}a^, and ftcqsle.stitag Adi Parties to SuUwit Any Molions Seeking f'totective (')r,ici4 or 1cAcatio»s to i:on9pet pi.scuvcty During ihe Stay c)f 1:>iscovery," filed .fw. 5, 200=3. 7` Scc "I'iaintifrs Mcatyott tar 2:xletWon of :.Cinlr. i'or ReS-ponding to Intcrrog;ttories :uid Dncuntcnt Ret'nests of I9cfcndant Robbins & Mycrs, tnu.," Clcd in Montgomery Cowity tm Sapt. 22, 2008: a' "E'oaidition.'l TJiird-Patty Complaint," Gicd in Montgomery County on Sept. 4, 2008. See al.Ka 'Answ4r of t?A °t'echtiotoglies C®rpnratioa to /lmentic:d Colatingent 37tird-Party Cnmirtainr of 'I'yoou " q MoiitgoEnery Com-Ay ptt Sept. 10; 2008, i'eahnogiass. S.r.t.,,, fliM i n` Motiott of'Q/t TCCjtnoiClgic1 C.17rporiNton to StrifCG lwRtltinbent 'ritilYE P11Yy CORtpiaitil of Tycon '1'u:isnobi"^, S.r.l. ;anti for W.9tuissal as Third F'°,arCy Dc;fcttdant,.• filed in Montgourcry Cotlarty on Sc.pt_ 11, 2008. 71 "E3rder Graantnig ' t7iild-Party Det'c rydant QA '1'echnoEogies's Motion io :Strike C 'Cyoan Appx. 62 FEB-18-2009 @9: 55fahi From: ID: taRFiYDON HEPD Pa se e 014 R--93% D2{18I20D4 WBD 10:Q1 pAx ^qi5/416 Tyc:ott it.5ker1 Pcir Icave to S1ts its oplx7.41ttQri to tllc 1notBUti te strike the th11d-parly voirpictint, cf'clitiYing the lalcn Gtccne Cntriity,$z 'I'hu Court ciet3ied the 17t•otiota because (1) the three.itiowlt cleslay in titc rcqlicst and (2) tltc propo:,t;d pleading Mil^. ^cl to comply urith tEux:e of this Ccttzrt's rulcs." Several orders were issircrf on tnatiers not noted in the status report, se>ttie crta niotiom of the parties and ottzers.sua ssUtltc. The Cc>tut approvc;cf an agreed carc3er by thc parties dismissing Tycon '1''cLltltct};1ass, S.p.A., frony tlte case tscCaEtsc it {tad ceased to s.Xist, aplaaretltly flaving bet,,i tncrt;cd int.o '1'ycort 1'ccltJmgltsss, S.r.l.'" BBecause of this order the Conrt su•usk the Sccond Amended Ccsntplaint as it cozttinttcd to demand relief frortt '1'ywli Techrtoglaqs, :'S_p.A., and granted leave tt', li-tc a'tiYirci Amctxdcd C' .ompLiint withc't+t strch cicmareds.$4 A Thiret Anxended CampWnt wis duly filcd. The Court ordered the pattia,; tn strpply it with copies of tite vast a.r,totuzts of foreign legal mateiials they had c:ited,AG Aficr all, the Court`s own rules rcciuire copies ot unpu}rli;;hed casilaw.87 "5peciael Aprx^arancc nf 'I-ycatt '1 `abnngl;sss, S,r.l. tct t7mose Motiotl of Qa% "t'c:chnotol;ics Corparatictn to Strike C Untlitional'i llinl^l'arty t:oinplaitn," tilcd Ih°c. I S, °?Ao&. "Ordar lieuyiit6 Ik,l"rudau TYcota '1'otrnaylatz';'s Motio,Y tn Ali(tw the Pleaditig L`sptioncal 'Special Appunt-;trice t,l' Tycnti Ttechn09lass, S.r i to 0J>lxtse 1Vlotitm of f!A 7'ecCaalolo i^ t, riti ^.481$1^l17illt' '1`o i3e t)eeincxl ;+itesl," filed )an.2, 20U9, citingt.oc^lt. 2.pS^f t 3 ^I t r;aihu°c .ta r Ll^c^ ti^ vrrect c>nse nutnber), 2.05(I)(3)(2) (gsilsuc Iq tnclttdc thc cnrtr,ct rianle of tllc judge), and 2.0()(i3x3) (failure to attach cagias or etnrt -t3ppx. 63 FEH-18-2009 09:55Aht From: ID:G{2AYDON HEAU Pa9e:025 R=93x ^ .... , ...... ^ . . . ..-: . .. 0ZI18120D9 R*Et) 10:01 B.17t Q1016C47B lWLrtcitants filcd niaterials->viiy Jtktkiau--aztd nioved f`or atta chtcrasi tltc order in a timely tnanner." "I1te Court gi-antc;d fhe t•eytseg.x9 The C;cturt c:ntit-c:d itu agreed order between thw parties ott iitc cotafid4*nisatit.y oi` tlis:ir C:xC:hi127gE:s in disec7vcry.90 .T3u;ause that order wtt,S listartccn Pat;Ls 10119, tiac Ccttirt ordered f>ttrtflc4 wlio sttisniit proposed orders lojtgcr thtin ane page tcs supply the Cnttrt with an electrotlie fzle of the ciocttnzcnt so it might txzake ntodiaaaiticsaas it dtsired.41 `1'iais is the Isracticc: ita the Utliled States llistric:.t, t,oust for the 5nttfhcrn I3xstrict of t7fiio, wlzc:re proposed orders tnust be subntitteei cit..^x:trt:tnical (y,``x l~iually-a word iite C:ntu•t eJcies not expect to oftcil use in ttaL cout-se of this ca.sc--'I'vwn atid Pfatxller have filed a tacw ce>tutterclaitn 3cafn:t QA Tcx:htaoIogies. Counterclaims are talso made ap;ainst parties new to this sttit. Thaletoc anel iCarf I3crgtxtaaxis. On one single day-February 4, 2009-Tycon and Ptauttlcr inadc, ewera;ty -four ii3ir,gs with the Clerk of Courts related to their claints against ()A 'I'ce^hnoiogie.s, 'I"ltak:tcc, and I3csrgmann> 13eft}re tlies-c docutnctats could even t-eacli 7laaletee and 13ergmatanta in {fienxiany, Enquip has already filed a moticrn to strike tlte t.c►unterclainis.`,3 C1po3z the fiiing of tltis ordLr, ti3at tiicttioja will be the sole otatstattc!'tng ik,ui in the mse. Asicir. frofu lhc actual merits of it, of course. 13tat the case ii titI tt1cz'i0ess, says Robbins & J,4yers9 tllttt iltis suit should hr~ dismissed. ^"t)efendanis° 4uhtttission af I=urcipt 1^gal M:cteriat^" anci "t^aft•atdant's Mntian for listc^ssit,n nr'1'itatc. t4^ ^uhtrnit Eta&QyrF.,Bngaagc Translatitut:; of 1ta#4an 1.cgli1 Matericils," batts ialed t?n ltuE- .5, 20I19s ""C3rder (irantiitg Uar'atx3ams' Itccltwst tn 1"ile 1•`orcigs) I_egaE M;ticriaf ltcfcrrmtl t0 ln 11)eir 1§riefs No Later `1'}tttn .lantrxty 20, 2009, And Dcc1m-ing That ?sc ► 1•'authcr LxtettsizNt:t Will F3c Alttawaci," filed Jan_ 20, 2009. w"Agreed E'rot=ive tatder," iilc.`d T}ec. 23, 2t10g, 9a .•flrtler I. ttirin AnyOver Pro ^ ^1 & 1^cd Otdcr Cane Page 1 resenled for 11tc Caxrri,s Appmval 13c Submiited Ctoth cpn Ptaper rttxl in the P^otm of an ElLctrtNtic F-7 ►11:." rtled 13ec. 3u, 20()8. Scc: Lhtitad Staies District Court for the Sowthern !)i.-otict ofolfio, Civi'ilCrirninal Otscs-f:icctronic Filittg Polit;iCa atnF Procc:dtlvn Mattuai (2035), Fi(1:)(2), :tvailnhle on-line tt http:/lwwt^.al^sdi.usanttrrs.guvll>dfi hoficy- and, 1'rocedure Mtutual 20US,psll'{Iast aeceasci.t!'cb. 12, 2009). 43 131,i "Mo[ion io Stril:e'Clonditiwt.til. Cvutltcrc;laians' n¢"l'ye:on'3'celrnoglasS, S.r.I.", rfctl Fc1f. (r, >0{19 and "t.,}Na(K .itiot orMcation tca S"trfke Courlitionul Countr.rclaitns rs9"1Yt:cn 'lochnogidss, S.r.I. uand PFattdlor, late,," fiIctl Feb. 12, 2t3(?h. ► IG of 78 Appx. 64 FEB-18-2009 0S:56At^^1 From: ID: GRRl°DC1Pf FFEAD Pase: @16 R=93z 02/18I2009 wEn iQ:BZ, BAx 20171079 A Fltiliil'C to St:lte .l (;EtOF^iA? 'f'hc C°oalrt has before it the "Motioia tcl DisnYi:s-s Of 1)cY'cnctant Robbins R. Myers, lnc,,")' which asscrtx the plaintifl`s lt"ve failcd to state a c:laim ilPciYa %vllich rLlicf nlay bc 2nantad,1)x As Robbins ^, Mycrs says "there is 110 known difference tzelwcc:la lhtlian law and C))iio law" oIl Chis trlattcr, tlic Court will consider the alzution by the standards of titYs state. And iFftaus4 Rcltsttnls d'c : Myers's tnotion speaks only to L'nquip's attempts to pHC:rce thc corpol;l.tc vet1311d hold it li:zizlc for itw subsidiaric.^' actions, the C,nrart will consider orttv that aspect 4ft13c conlplaitlt. S7tlnci+rd frJr Revtc'w A motion to di:mniss asks a C:ourt til l.c,st the adeqilacy af a c;clMplaittt.°r " Ill c ansidcring .such a motiOn, "all the facttlal aIlegatzon.ti nulst be tuicetl as true aEid all rutsc)nablc inierenccs t3litit be dracvfl in favor of the noaunovirl(; pbrty"y' Only if it is "Ixyclnd doubt" that no facfs colatd be prt?wm to support the plAitltift'S cf211n'J sl%luld a motion to fliSniiSs be granted,98 'l11C (.Vxaj must uonsi der otily the allegationa witttin the four corners of thG uftupiaint --and nclthisig c*lsc.94 lstrq9iip :T ATlc;sycltidlny I17c Civil Ri{Ifa require a C;o171plaiflt to giY'C a concise ;1ccoUl9t (}1, tlle cl.inl2 %tt7Zf the rCIiL'c +3rnlanded.'(* The conipiaint alicgcs 1Zobbins & Myem clpcratcd its sub8ic3i7ries- I'ycon, ttobhins d'G: Mycrs ltatill, and l'faudicr-as its "alter egos.,''ot 7'ycon and 11l:atiriler are s°aid tO be operated ax 9'' f'iBC[t ill MO11tgbPlJix'y (, '.o1PB1ty 1'2[I N{9t. 5, 20U8, w11C11 thiS acti611 W:SS "4'icc t:iv.R.12(l^x() (tatciing tttcre as Case No. 08-t;V-S9tP_. w^.Sltrtr ^.^ t'^l. G'wr^urr v. tYrtaeras.rr.yC.iv.1^r1 4Jt;v^mm^. t45 ^hin St.:lci 445, 5^78, ty92 C^}^ie>`73, GU5 N.F..FeI t78. °' /31rrr! v. l^:7ber ( 19+31), S7 C?hio St.3ef SG, t^p, s{^5 N.R ?ti 584. "ri'13t'f:n v. Unfvcrxtty Crxi^amruritl^ Tirnrmis Utrevn Jnc, (1975), 42 C)hita St'.2d 292, 245, 753, cifitlg C'cvo%}J v. Giba'un 71 0.0.2t#223, 3?71V.r3.2d ( 1957}, 355 U.S. 4l, >85, 7i1 S.{,i. 99, 2 L}:,t}?d $0. See also U 4.A. C`ne'/t., C^ity tJjGildc irtntrli v. f3cretJlJ )e y3 Ulaio St.3d 41G, ?.()t12-CThiw?4t30, 768 N-E.ZeI 1 I.3 Appx. 65 PEB-18-2009 09:5SAM From: IDcGRA`IDON iiEALl Pa9e:017 R=93% 02/18/20{18 WED 10; 02 I+AX gj418/078 iZalabin, & My,;xa, pait of t11 e parelit's "I'rocess ^.^)iltloala C.irotlp,",11 Pubbflas & Myers, NayS :lDCluip, L'nlasCllldxted Tycon ;^d Pfatldlcr:s Upel'atio)1zS under tJte !(itter CC7n'!panv's ilc^islQ3 ip order "to ellntu)me inti-d-duurad competition between jTycnn j and 1'falldlcr by e: ta.G1Bslzlnl; unl#Ee control of a3t of 1'i'ywnj and 1'faudler:s c^pCi^ltians."!n'' TZohbins & M.ycs-s and Pfauciler strppuscc3l} hatle tite aantc c>#iiccra.l(fS l;ttqtlfls and the Nairic-is c1ai1l1 ti1Ly WccV atSse ►rui ut the tit3ae of ltobhins & Mycrs's purcliase that Ptlaudlcr and 7'ycoat would continuc: to coirlpete--.thus the hasis t'vr F"IlqutP cantinuing to rcprescl,i. 7`ycoli and to sigiy the conta-act at issue hem-._--but Robbins & lbfyelss actiUny violated those assurnnccs.106 Enquip i^d1cges RobbinS & MyCrs's mar(agemcnt directed 'l yuirn to t.er2llrnate its c;or,tr4ct watit Enquip and Robbins & My^, ars's exccutiyes pet:sonally dr€11.tuf the letter of terrt) irnltiulp.'07 Then those sanie Lxecutivcs tried 4u sr:ttle C:ltetuip"s claim:, %jth Tycola,lng Tt 1Hiyc, a1lcg,„; Robbins & Myers operated its sYlbsidiarec;; withc>ut rcgalti to tlxGir scparate corporate cxist.encr,N hY "frccly nrov[ifi3j cash" ;taizonk;st itself aazd it.ti :;ubsidiar;c, "^..vithaut regarci t:o each partic:ulat cntitie:f°] liabililies or ability to pay it,ti otv77 clcbts:'1a" l'his was one example of how rnyne of tlie sulrsidi ,:c garate rnil,ct, r,villf}] nr.praCtical CxiStence of its own iladependeiil oC[RabbiilS & Myers]," ro TyL`oll'& letter trattsv?AtEEllb fct i;yiquip ikir contract for EnUquip`s signature•--tilc letter was .ntttlcha.i to the complaint along with the contras.t--refet•s to ltobbbis & 141yerti Iiallia (1) makitig agrcenc;nts wiih potential ct1s7,psnrrs anct how tliat would iqnpact fFnyuip's commissions and (2) how tv^ Td. 11. )d. ^^611 tnc Id.P, 36/l. 1d.JP3-26. "n id. 1:iGJ, ior td- P6K. Id. J.36F: taa 1d,113f1). 18 of 78 Appx. ^ 6 FE8-18-2009 0J:5E^1 From: ZE3: GRAYDON F-EfD Page;Oa,e R=93: 02J1812008 WBU Ioa 02 FAat ®IIi4l076 Tttibisitas &I Myers rtalia would agme t.n provi supl7lying c3cfcctive rquiprnent, i:atquap has livC cUunt.ti aganast Robbins & iVltiels: i$rmjch oi' tL5 co;)tratc;l with Tycon; a ['c-q41c5t f>t hYY' s1CcOtY%1tit2g i711dCr 1'i171t. Cottti'il(:1; a falJtli-e 14 PBY CU111371.is5ioYY.4 dqc! ttilCi4;r g1t; ct)tlt7' IttSS of tuturc illceslree fttii tIn tc:t-aaixxatcd Wntr.cr: and flftuci.tal Fnquip had prcvictu,sly ,3tatcd a claint !'or tortious interfercltce with its contract"z but this fas bec;n withdrawtt„' t^,^causc a parent conapan} cannot tort7oYis1y interfere with its own stthyidiaries' c:ontrac:ts, a priztciplc enuncia(etf in a decisioti cyf tJze Ohio,13upreme Court rcndc°red stlbseqceent to tlac filiutt; ctf this aetiojl.r 14 Aeaor°ding Jn Our Ne w Ar°ri vul "There's a change in the status qtto,"Its albeit slight. The new arrival is I.7n»ad)ro.sk...i ae WCWP{IW, ,rPiC: t16 It aalodiftcd the Caurt'S existing tripartite-test to "fliercc the corpor:tte veil,""7at1d hold shaT'ettolders liable for a cc>rYxrrations actions. T[te thrM elements--estab)isl3cd in lM ia) Belmcdere C:ondcanriniurn drnct (')wrrer., v. Id.E, Roark C:orrrpurties--•ate "(1) c4ettrclk ov corporatian by those to tic held liable `vas so complete thatt tlto ctu{rntn:tion lias no sc,^arate anincf, will, or c;xi:aence of its owia, (2) control ovcr the t:c7rpcsintitan by those to be iiLlcl liaf)1c weis excrciscd in s-ue,h a manner as to vt3ztYtnit tiauci or an illegal act against the person seeking to disr-egard the corporate exitity; and (3) injury or tnijust loss t-esultcd to the p3aintitY'frotn such cantmI and wrctng.'11K The new scwnd prong of that test is: "['I']hc piaintiti`must cicmc ►nstrve that the uld. V l-b7. n'tz "'•nmezkicc! in ^+ftb7tgamcry (;c,ntplaint," 1',kxi Caunty i)n Aug, 6, 2008, y5U-S3. Pl^inlii^s Me:uoea,ufutu Ols^osing Defcadrunr tinbbi[ts & Myers, Inc.'s Ntotivn to Llisrni.^x," fited lhx. 3, 2008, xt 3. 19` lJvrnfirn•s•,Ei v Wellp,vdm Irrs., 119 C1hio S13d 506, 200$-t?Isiu-d827, 895 t4.i;.2cf 538. `I'ix, "Auiencleti Complaint" was liloJ August 200$, and 1he d`.,ision in 1'samPsra4ki was issuad .1k-prc:nzber 30, 204$. ns Gary hcartnciy 1udy Hctrt, "°Accxrrd ing [q Our Naw r!n•iv,tla," thcnte song to Mr. f3olvcdere (AW.'E'clevtsi(xt 198S- I990), on t3ia nlburu'IelavisiosA i ►rc;,aect i-lits, Val. Ca (1Y't'kccardx 19%). ° u Lion,brwkr. 1 P) Ohi4 St.3d S06. "7 See t3clver)ere Cc+ndanainium tanit Uweser.s' A,an, v. li.f3 licrark C:n.s., Trre., W.J:.2d 107S, panagraph;hree ofd[c s}ii.•,bm 67 Ohio St.3d 274, 1993-0bi®-I19, 617 Id. 19 of 78 Appx. 67 FEB-18-2009 09.56AM l;rom: ID-GRAAYl3OJ HEAD Page:019 R=93% 02J18/2008 WES3 10: t12 FAX 0020I078 dcfctuiant shareholder eacrciwd coittrol over the cocpnrattion it, such a ttiartnur as tct ccammit firaud, iua illegal act, or a sirttilarly unlawful act."119 "flri:c continues the I0ng-stanetint; principle that (hc corporate l'c)rrni nt'y be di,sregarded if it is :ri»sed.E`o ScSrzat= of the r:astsctti wlyicl1 allow this atv failing tt) ahseDvc Gorporattc liarmalitics, stocldt.cldc.^rs taking on the corporatittn's.. I•.rttancial respt>nsibilities, inadequate capFtali^ct ►uti to c^zn^y on thc ctaajx)rat7c►n's npcraticans, diversion of coi-porat.e property, and the u,rgoz:ition being "ta njcrc f:ac'ade for tlx: operations of the dominant stoekholders.'zxt 'i'!ac distinction between parcix( and subsidiary has reetl disregarded even if ccnporatc; fotinalities were ohtierved if the parc ►lt, uttirly dlln3illatCi the SLl^.lsidiary_1k2 77te I3elvcdcrc 7'ext as Appiied 'I7ie Court assutr►cs tlte :aflegatic,cts Tnade in the enmplaitatarc #rue.. Enquip ntakes nunjerous allcgations 1tobbi.ns & Myers crrntro(led its sczl;ra-fdiarres in S-uch a way as to harnt it. 1f'prUvetl, L;Atcluip°s aElegat.ions of (1) operating 'I'ycoxa as a par! Of itsc-lf or of RfaudieYA (2) using its subsidiaz-ies' assets freely without regard to tha:ir ohlfga.tions; and (3) parent atad si ►bsitliary having tiYe same officers; combined with (4) the ref^rences in Tycun's letter traasmitting the Wnt:r;,rct ta Y;tiquip about Rcthbins & Myers Italia being involved in i!y subh-idialy's affairs would support the first part of tlic l3clvederc test, tliat the stibsidiarics were mere puppets of titcir xtockbctldc:r lttabhi73s ^.& Myers. Lnquip lias alleged fraud, which is "(1) a representatitita, (2) tu:rterial ta tile 117any-a.ction, (3) made fi:.isCly, l;:nctwingly, or 7ecklt:ssly. (4) dvitlt th4lntenti(m offxtZSleadyltg allcsther Into a.iustifiablu "' f7Cintbt'oski, 119 04! io St.3d 506, sS 1!ah:ts, 13.9: .90lc r;x rei. A 7drxncy (;cna:rul s. Sfandsnr1O11 C:o. (1992),49 Ohio `it. 137, 179, 30 A.i', 274. 1'.1:. LttNZber C'm v. Rabl.irrs (}°cb, 7, 1991),2d Dis{, NA. 12355, 1--'Vf WL 15966 at *3, citing Cenmine ,Rratu 1'en•ts u. S'erdsa>sr.lrrsizll (Sept. 17, 198 7), 2d I)ist, No, ! t1179, 1987 WL 17106, 1z' faararzi,zgc^r r, l,trxc, 103 Uitio SL3d 3:37. 2{)04-Olilo-4227, 815 M1i:A:.2d 65$, &ylE:tbus (right c1f .tiYcx,:kho3dits to itisprcl a corporalio:s°s records exdended to allow thecrt to insgecl rcc.cxds of €!ie subsidiaries). GC frnik3wagenw+csrk rtktiengerrc:ll.wlra,rt v. Beech eiiraraf C..trrlr. (C.A.2, 19$4), 711 R2d 117 (personal ,juriseiiction cou)8 bc micrtcei ovcr vut-af-siate parent c,orporativn bLcause it dottinaicd a aubsithary whiclt the ccatrt had persorioiauriWiction uver). 20 of 78 Appx. 68 FEB-1S-2009 09:57A'9 From: ID:GRR`fUt]td HEAD Page:OC@ R=93: 02/18/2009 âFED 10t43 FAx aA21/078 reli4in.cc Daz [I-rnse fficts, (5) which causes the; uther party injury.>''z:; R"bbins & Myc,-S made st:itc:nieatts about its o,yncrslup uf'1 ycom via-a-vis 111faucftc:r wllicly LityuiP c;lai:nts it relied upnit in coiatinueng its rclatianship vvitlt 'd`ycora, t'epre5G77tOt9o11S which }:nqUiIJ says 1WctC Wse :33TC1 Gausc.^^[ it injttry. 'I'lae clniltls inaclc are :t prima i'acic casc Fisi^llly, t:he alleged wUteld constitute an "'siijtyry or unjust wa-ong" 3I;ai:ist Enquip. All tlirce parts of t.liC 13cclverlc As Arrigx law has bceat r•aiscd, the Court muxt also cUnsidc.^r thc pctssibii.ity Italian law might consider the ncti:ons of ltobbins & Ntycrs tc, be illegal acts. Wliiic it n3ay go "without xaying that a contraact caztn.ot bittcl a nUn-party,>1124 t11C IIs'tliFlyd law might be biTl(l1ng if kQ1I7bl[Is & Myers is shown to be '1°ycan's altcr cgct. And the C'.01grt observey i2vb$ins & Myc;rs seek.w to avail iisalf u!'the c:unirac:t`s cltoice-af laur 7nd foruni-selection provisions in its joint nitstian witti its feilow cI43i~ndants by stating "()h'sU applics the law ^7f Italy."!zs As t#tc relevant foreign law on tlai^ ►5sue is izctt contained in the coanplaint the Cautt will draw an infccrAtm in tarrvr of Lncluip that It.alipta 17w might ;supppxt its claims. In any cvcizt, the fxa^cid claim filonc sttccts the scswnd prong of 13el.isc.dere. j!!G Cf)1n'Ol(fIf}t !.} sufoclew AIl three parts of 13Ctvezfere as tuodificd by DrJmhrY,ski Btave been ►MCt. ]t is not "tseyond clnuht" ttfat kitqui{s could prove its ca.sc. ltatlter, Enquip has statcsd facts which could justify piercing clxc ccarporaw veil :ttid allow this Coui•i to treat Robtains & Myc.rs's suhsidiai•ici as its alter egos. ThL cvmnlaant is sufficient atzd the motion to dismiss ut^der civ.R. 32(BX6) iior lailm to ,qt;zte a claim upon wyhicli retzcfcaii bL granted is c3enied. r" C'rUran v_ Vim e»!, 175f1D0u App.3d 196, 2p(?7.Ot:iv-3G80, $8311.F.2d 9Cs4,1E 8, citinl* /.turr v. !la`. ofC.tr. C te/Na+N:ti: of S1urk C71r . 0 980,23 Q]iici SOet 69. 23 t3fllt 200, 491 'N.} .2d Y70I, paragrtaph twcr trf Elrc Fvit7bdr,ti, 7.4 liqrrw Enrp. OpprtrYnrriditz Comrsr. v, it%tr ,ffle llorese. lnr. (2002), 534 11.& 279, 294, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 1,.lid.2d 7,55. 5cc "Csrarbuux3 M®fiat7s Mcntiaaarulum" at 3. 21 caf 78 Appx. 69 F®-18-2009 09:57PM Fr•bm: ID:GRAY[JON HEAB Pase:021 R=93 % OZ/18/2009 WED 14:03 PAX Qvc-rv,o Contract Intcrp><•^tation in Six Sentences A contract is prz surned to liave lieat rc;td and tttictorstood by the parties and ttycy will be botuid to it abxcnt tvideiic:e ibeia' signing, was involuntary.'2*u When interpreting coYttiacls, courts Attust try "to carry out tlhe intent afthe partics.it2r Tlu=ir intent is prc'umahly witPiiii ihe lant;uage of the cosxtr:u;t.123 A c:oBltracY'-, wnrds should be given thoir p1ain nneCznings."`' When a contrau:t is s;lc::ar and unambit;ucisis then its 4ttterpr<:t:rtioza is a matter of Iaw.l3® And a cotztract`s terms will be cQnStrtSed ugiaRxxst the draf'ter.t3i Judgment on f;he I'lead`angs i3ntit side5 ltave askcd for judgment oxi tlze plcading5. "i'hc plaintiffs seek to strike clefendant,s' dc.fenscs ha:;a,.^d on the farum selection clause of the contract 4iztf principles of comity.132 llGfcndanta have also reque,stcd the Goust rutc ol3 their I'orum aelection defenses.;13 A request fiar judgmetlx;on the l3lcadings is t;uvcanect by Liv.lt. 12(C:), wlticli provides: "After the pleadings are closed but r,vitlai» such tinie as not to delay the trial, any ptuty may ,nuve Tor judgnlcnt on the l3[ea,adings." t`. T'rn.fir,•ed .r.upirat,r,c. Y. r'ower EW. Grotsp, Im., 112 Ohat SL3d 429, 2007-4lhio-257, 860 N.13.24 741, 4ititig 17eC:uanp u I•1mneue (1$76), 29 O19ic7 SL 467, 471-472 and Hullar ae 1larrnr Cnrp. (1990). SU Uhia St3d 10. 14, 552 `l.l;?d 207. :Stx also Uctskin N. Slurntn HanciEl, Grrthff (S.D.N.Y. 1975), 340 F.Supp. 366. 366-367 (forum sGiection clatlse'rn a contract prc,4umed To have been read, undcrstoad, Appx. 70 FEB-i8-2009 09:5?A`1 Frarn: xD:GRA1'C3W HEAD Pa9e:022 R=93! 02/18J2Q09 WED 10t09 PAX Q023/078 '1'hc stas3ar.d for thc c;otart is siiyti.lar to tttat of a niotion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12()3}(6) or a rqtt4st for suAtinaary judt;uir;tt.t, <)uly the Wtcgatxons in the pleadings are te) be considLree3. 'l'hty and aii reasonable inf4ence; fi'nnl them arL preszgmcd as truu."4 The Partie58 C;imaicc of Law The Cvaart:. in re globe" for tfxe relevant law. CJhica'.r (_ It is now coznknon fi^r the caurts of one state of our Union to al°Yltily iiie laws of tituir sistcr states--gho Suprenae Court of the United Slaies says they caiinatt refitse.331 DcErzware law o(1eu appears bec;:tutie of the ntasiy ccanipaixies ineorpctr°.iW there-sttch ns i'Cauciicr-but the law:; of states as diverse as Louisiana and 3-iaWali have appeared in Qhio's tribunaly.E36 What law applies to a case comes u;) must frLqut;ntly in tedertil dixjersity actions. C.ienet••al1y, the federal court applies tEge law of the, state it sits in."' (This is l=usc theix. is no federa! r.anatttoc) law.g's) t3ug not :4wxays, ht)wcVcr. Take an aircraft-buili by a M:trylanc€ corixsration headc;uartcrcd in 11r1isa.;ouri, zjiaintaincd in California. opc:rat hcadquruicred in Illinois, and powered by jet engines mauiufactured by a New York corporation in Ohio-which departed Colorado imd crasbecl in Iowa while carrying l)asscngcrs from thirty states r.a,rrk-17, 178 Ohio App3d 403 at 19. t^s H{s,hnr r: fiPwr(3951), 341 IJ:S. 609, G!2-G13, 71 3,C1. 980, 951,.td. E212. 1° I: g, si+b*s Spotv MIs., frrc. v. €:lcrvr:lund Brom.x FrWW! C;ra. (198((), 26 Uii'so St.3d 15, 2Ci OHR 12, $961d.1ud 959 (I3uE:swtre); Amerfiarrt tfuc7•rrvtr Ins: Co. u C;dfl ,Sm+iae C;lr., !rn'., 112 Ohio 54.3d 52 i, 20t)0^-0hik-fit}K, S60 N.I;?d 524 (1Atsisiltk't); Mis.srlclinc v. :frwrictrtnGiuur. d'r Liah. ltts. Co. (2003), 8th Dist. No. 82029, 2003-0ltio•2315, 21303 WL 21428539 (! taivaii). 'zt L'Qfpor w. f.rnch C",arp. ((;,A.5, I990), $96 F.2ci 939, 942, ciling Gkg- Ct- 7tfulttoYnurtt. Ine. v. C;°hulfnncr (t975), 423 U.S. 3, 4, 96 S{:t. 167.46 l...l;.?d 3ntui Shrcirt v. ,We-vac3n (GA,5, 1985), 777271'.3d 1185, 11,05, l.'4rac TfR. t,`o. v, Anpkivts ( t938), 3{14 t J.S. 64, i$ S.U. 817,92 LFtt. 11238. '43 of 78 Appx. 71 FES-18-2809 09:58APt i=rom: TD:CaRAYDOhl NEAD Page:023 R=93y 02118i2009 NED 10:43 gAX ugzatura ritad two foreign countries.t"a Wttat lawapplierl in tdiat tragic "who's ctn first'1°"t't`} 'I"lte answe,-r wvas-- as it so often is in law-"it dcpezzds;" witCt a diff%rc.nt law applied to ctt4h defettdatlt. Tjtc (::Ourt Mlt rij;ply lJn(itr,t 1 0,f Nothing so ditricult faces the Court. Tlte parties' Contt'ac:t contaiats this Wnttrtice: "'711is :€t,Yrecmettt slia1l be gctverttcd by nud interpreted in accordance with ti3c It1}itan Iaw."t4t Tryirtg to apply Italian law tr, test the validity of a c11oice ®f law provisinn sctac(:ing Itatyan law "would obviously lie `pttttiitg the barge 1>ef.ore the tug."`2 (Though that ►.s ttppFarentlS+ the prtt;tiec in the '!'enth Circ;uit;t3. ) The parties have not conte^sled ttrc sctectiott of law, though tite dcfcndants sp^.yna3 several pages insisting ItaIian law apI:t}ics, Gltn#g Yo vartotas ()hto cascMst44 and the TiG8taderrrem195 in their efforts. raa Sue lai rrs Air ('reJSh Uisaaeler ud .S'italaa: C,'i , IowU J2t1 19; 14c43J ^ ^- ^ Y CN.t^_t1L 1 990), 734 1°.S►ipp. t4_5 . Cf. Lre^.hxsx v. fteuding 4 t.srtle., C'cu7s (S.ll: Tcx. 1983), 577 F.Sul^p. 462,464 (Americam cuuq detearnittctl Philippine Eitw applied tt an cait dritt'sng rig ot3'the coasi or Saudi Arabia) and ► In re ",4ganP ()rrrnt;u" f'rods. LiuG: l.iril;ru;on (li.l).N,Y, 1984), 580 r.Supp.. 690 (class action by ls1aiRxtitls residing in evciy aatc inje,re5d by toxir cliomicaD. i'" Scc Tbe >ktat!ghty Ninciic:s (Universat 1945). 711; ito:t of "Wbo's on Fir.^a"" frono tlrat lelm is r-eproduccd itt M>b Ftstruitne:l: & Ron Palumbo, Abbcatt xna3 Cvstei}o in Hollywood (1991) 268-2bt3. aat „AgcnLy Ag,ccnacnt," attachcd as 1?xhibit A to thc'liaird Altxcntied Cotnpiaint. tA? ai.ff(CtlJl7Vit=f1 Y. Gt,tarr re, 5:,p-4. `1992). 954 1^.2d 763, 746, 2931.t.S.App.D.C. 332, qttotittg DeNic:oJa C."tlrra•NCiUure, L/ad. (C.Ji.l, 1981). Ca42 F'.2d 5, 7, t'ii_ 2. E4? : See Yaew; v. 61 PviM, 14rk (C.A.1 tl, 2016), d65 F.3d 418, 428-d3Q ("A fcuuDn sciection ciatcse is part of the coatu-act. We see ito tr:ulict►lnr reason, ,3t lust in tttc inlc.ariaticmul contcxt, why a f®rum sctaction clnuse, antiong the ranWtude of provisions in a cemtract, should be singled oyt as a provision etot to be ifst4nprrUct in acccrrdaliw with the law chosen by the ccx3trac.`ting partir.s * * * wlteea tltc ctimraact contaixts a cltaicc-tif fuvs ctause, a ccrtirt catt effcctuxtc (lse partics' agrct:ment eostcc. ^rning tite f®turn only if it izttur7ros tl►e forunt cRausc utxlcr the chosen Ixw'`). 73tc 'Vc,rui Gimuit rclicxt on Jacob WttEyts Yaukee, tltoicc oftilw Contieleratiotrs in the Vaiic}itylcc En1l,rcenxerit of Internat'son:ti Ftm,rn Sekcti,xr Agrc.^entents; Whose Law A.pplfr.u7 (20041 9 UCLA J. Int7 L. & T'ottigtt AiT. 43 and l.,inda S. Mulimix, Atrotttar Gttoicc ot' ]:'onnn, Anotber Clioicx of Gzw: Gdn.Scns,t,ti Adjtxiicistory Procedtsrc in rederal [;aun (1988). 57 Fordltan t..,PCev, 29 1. ► "" Selpulke h°adfo ['a•orls., Ltai v. Udrlwc.cAerrr 13rorrr9r.rsrli'ng Co. (1983), 6 ()hio Sl.3d 436. 6 OBR 950, 453 N,1;.2d 683, sy1)alaus; Appx. 72 FEH-18-2009 05:58AM From: ID:GRAYi3ON }EtaD Pa4e:024 R=93> 02/I$12408 wED 1Oa04 vax E025/078 't'Ile COnE't undc,-N-tands the 1njlldtcU.on of the Secotid Circ:uit to "t;uard agaixibt an excc,%5itPc: i-cIuctance to tinclertake the ttt.^:Ia of deciding fotvign laK'.,''" 7"hus the Court acccnLti iise choice of law clause as valid and will ersdetvvr to apply thc Iaw of Italy. The next (#ifficulty is in wimt exactly i,) the Italian iaw tlHc Coua•t is to aiaply. "Pretty Little ]E'iictecre" l'IIG (.'ouTt is reminded of ti14; advocate who Un F81)1=I was 38foT111e4.I 13V thC,tldpe 111at "Y(}4t niay pre:;sittnc the court k»nwx the iaw" and the ;tcfvocate replied "1"Isat svas tlle niistake I made in the triw c:ourt.,,'"? A 7 atiil maxi!m seems appropriatc: Jiis l.cgem scrt: 'I'€3at is, `.itie Court ktaaws tile Iaw "'t1 (C;rettt. atathority contends that "IjNclgcs are allowed tu show uff zll this faslaion" by ltsing Lazin.17) But its knowledge is c,mniin;ed to Chis cotltltay.uld anything cl4e is fot-cign, izt itiany sen:ses, to it. '1`llu,S it nitast be prc7ve,^d. But how to lcarn of Jer c3vlcc tet;ga? I'he Struggle to Know Foreign Law Applying iorcigu law has historically bcctl a ciifFicult wsk iiitx cotlrts. In Ohio the itult:s oI' Civil Procec3tire inttndate the caurrs take judicial eaotic.e of thc :;tafute:s and ectnstitittznlis of this and the otlier slatt.s and clf the Utiitcc# States.'s`t Fcsrtnerfy otSc lyact to prove tI:L laws of the !lmcnCan states in eacl7 tlthcrS` caurts.°S6 Sc)metilxlCS cpurts will talie judicial riotit;4: of ft?reign lilw,t52 which is said to be tiic prdcti4c; in ciA law systctns.153 'I'his is not the case in dhio.ls4 Nor of many other '"Mlclr:x irNaartut8l., .S,A. v. Avnrr rrtic.ls, lnc. (C.A. 3951), 641 1^.2d b2, G$, citing C'f/frrrrr i>. ,'"ic>.nbcus .4ueos Crtcmim rir^ sNr, s.4. (S_E7.?+1.Y. 1964), 232 F.Supp, 433, 443 aiad Mrkr! Irrrrkc'ra (_'a Y. Vcne Gr°ande fJil E:O. (C.A.3, 0956), 363 F.2d61I,6I5. '"' Maatoa C.'nrp. v. Prrrk I;7cc. Ca (1973), I30 C.aa.App, 508, 5f18, 203 S.12.2d 753. BAN1N,& M1f!dCd9 V. MwSkl[Itl ( 1860), 13 Wis. 142, ) 8b0 WL Zlitt'-11 at *6; Alltat v. City tft'ulxrr,19G1 OK CR 67, 963 1'.2d .382, 383. 1e9 Aruonin SQ-ilia & F3r};ai A. tsanle.r, MakYag Your Case: Ti►e Art ofl'ersetaciing dudgm (2M$) 114. (:iv.it. 44.1. 13.g.1'lrtlrrca• n: r$rtcrqtt (1q24), 194 Cal, 436, 229 P.2d 2•9; Fcn•n v. C'rtrndall (1926), 79 Ctrln. 403, 407, 24() P. 270, a:iting lloliitt=.s v. l3rnug1urin (Jd.Y.Sc,p.Ct: 1833), 10 Vyerrd, 75, 25 Am.l~tec. 536; t3uhler u Mo;ldistsn (1943), 105 UIa1i 39, I-10 ]'?d 933, 938. isa Fs.g. Strgofnislrt Y. t."umrrcl N^hi0e )lru; lid (C:A.2, 1955), 221 E?c1 189, 197 {natieitsg 13ul;lish l.sw, recluiecd by cho':ec cif larv provision 03l stearn.4laip ticket, u) suit over in,jetry ain7tant the 1t.M.,9 Queen Isliztrfx-th}. i s3 Syrncuknides, Caat4Yiat Appx. 73 FtrB-1$-2009 09:58M From: ID:U;'AYDON !-EAD Pa9e:025 R=93y 0 2/1 8120 0 9 erEr► 10:09 rax ZQ261078 qtateS.1" Sixty Yc.Fi. xs il4^^t> pt1t^ ^>uP'Il.mc L.ourt said "[i]t lla.S lUbn Iieen thc scttlcd law oi`this sfdite that the law ofa foreigtl country lnust bL proved by cornpc:tent evidenr e;ts .ury other f:jet matctyal to the case."15` " Dcsc:atfes before, the Supreme Court of C..alifiarnin enfka,-ct;d lltc same rule httsed cm decadcs of Atnericatt prt=cecietaf.s.ts' (Yet irt thc I830's f)k?ica lbuna foreign court ,jt,dbniatits wtzciu::ivrty valid unless obtained by fi°aud,158) & Qreigit law rr,u5c bc placed in tfae record i'ur thc Court to oong-ider. 7'his truatrnesnt nf'foreign law was good old-fashioned Yas7kee praf;rnatisni. In the tv(lzds of the yotart6cr Jcjhtt M.arshall flarlan: "When sources of foreign Irtw wcre not readily accvstiihle, it was irnprketic:al to expect a judge to ascartaain applicabla lctrcign law, as nught be expc,^•c:tecl of hiftl vvith regard to the law of his state. It is most li2:ely gitiit for this rea.um courts in this Gotultry ctsnte to require i`c►reign law to be proved as a tact if it was to he apnl'aed."160 'tllat appl•oach is based otl "" Evurr,s v. .Reyrtoltla (I $77), 32 Ohia St. 16.1, paragraph one of tize syltabus (.":ftzd"tciaJ notice ean not be takcx •^« of tlie statutes of:r tcrrei•gn cuuntrw>"). ► E"', Cic:lk;r v. t4#cf'.ntarr (1947), 64 Ncv. 102, 104, 177 P?d 461 ('°The F©tam do ttot ukc jvdicial mst'tse of CithCr tftr,s rvritten or ctitwritten laws r^('a f`oreibn cnuntry" rind ttie Nevads cr3urt refiised to notic:e flic luev< of dlic Yukon `t'erriturs, L'anRd1). s-" 01Fjsrn N. ,Lublin (1944),143 Ohio St- 417, A 19-42U, 2.8 C).C). 354, 55 N,E.2d 658, csi.inR Ingrahtnn v. /furB (1lftl2), 11 Ohio 255 (taw of Pennsytvania had to bc pie;ad aud proven); Smi16r v, l3urtrarn (1860), 11 Oltio St, 690 (sema); Whelc,n`a E.rr. v. Xiail;eluy:r dd,us: (I R75), 26 t)ttio St. 131 (same); Evatts v, &ynaldr (1877), 32 Ohio St. 163 (law of [3nired Kinrdo3tt); atral 1.tlrwwJl v Hannver Satt Purxl aoc. (1$83), 40 Ohio St. 274. Sec ufYo 1lrx.Grrrl(i v, kizllctnd t4rot, frr.T. Co. (1967), 10 C)ltitt App.2d 115. 39 0.0.2d 197, 226 N.F-2d 137 (part,v must Pkad and prove )aw of the Province of [Jtatarin whiCh ahc: usw.rte.4 xvrtw contrctlEintQ) ttnd if[rrrqrre de Freaatcc v. C.'hmtx Na1l. fl"ruzk taf (;lty o,,f'New York (C.A.2, 1932), 60 F?d 703 (1'reewh bnnl: sceking replevin 1'rom Anlcrican hatlks of' Sak1 it ctaitttetf was cxmfiseated by thd Soviet govrmtnent vfte;r thd Kcd October Revoftttion Ia,3c! to plead and ptmc fttss,sw4 hew). iS7 Sex: N!)rrfsv.11un'rs (1960), 15 Qi1. 226,254 (! exas laev saicl to la,: npplia:fia6le was not proven in Caalifornia court), c>iting..SIn>phrrr9 v. Nabarx (1844),6 Ala. 631; Xllir Y. lkhfle (1854), 2.5 Ala. 540; t:"roreeh r. //aFl (1853), 15 tlt. (5 Ptxsk.) 261; 7'attas r. .Sf:rrnd/ing (1nd. 1835), 4 13Czckf. 89; (',e-eetrwwd.: v tirermvarle (1$35), 33 1Cy. (3 Vatt0) 495; &totrl v. 1,*rtxsell (t.,a° 1$23), 1 h>lart.N.+s. 522, 1923 W1, 153 f; C'rraa+plxdl v. Miller (U. 1923), 4 MariN,S. 514, 11l23 Wi. 1529; .4rw_tm v. C°vrrrcl (183p). 1 La. 529; C,`ras.ier v_ Ffc,r1,So (1$32), 31.a%. :152; 14t,xrrtc t°cafnntrr(I..y. 1942). 2 Rob. 49S, 1842 Wi.. 1752; /feu•rrs v. Idllntrt (I838), 12 La. 465; 7'hur.►lon v. P^,rr.livJ (1823), 18 Mass. (I 1'icit.) 415; t3ulone.c v. 13rnugltron (KY.4t1p_t::t. 12633), 10 Wend. 75;Abr;ll v. Duetlrlass (l+t.Y.Qy:Stap.ft. 1847), 4 1aes9o 305; ane! Mt>n€Kx,- u. 13oxt1,'1n.ca, (J tt51), 5 N.Y. (1 Seld.) 447.452. silvw 1.ttke l3rynk v. kPnrding (1832). 5 Ohio 545, 547 (i'ennsylvania ,judp 9lcltt Cnfara.^t). i:f. l.;gum, 32 Oltict 3t. :tt 164»165 (Jaw of Uttited k°sngduin---in tlte essc, 4 Eieo. IV C. 76-4ktd to he p3t-nd snd pmvcn and offering tet ihc coitrt a atotute hook cont;tiniozl; tltc enaettacnt was iuuu)cAluate pr(:nf). See also 13lffr.k IJ}um:and Stttrrmxhip Crprp. v, ltubm•J Sicnmrr & .St^rs (1949), 336 U.S. 3$6, 397, 69 S.Ct. 022, 93 1.1'.cf. 754 ("tha gcxur•el principle (is] that fisrc:i^p 1aw is to be proved sa a tact"). 4e Sirt`rlnrlrrr v. C°rmord FYlakoStpr, t,Pri (C.A.2, 1955),221 F.2d 194, 14f>. 26 of 78 -Appx. 74 F®-18-2009 09:5" From: IQ:GRA'YtYJN. HEAD Pase:026 R=93% 02fI$12004 B/ED 10:O4 PA7L Q027lU78 w.Ik9t Rtanlp()I{;'.y, p1ClYicsiy Mr. ,1'QStJCe ()tiP)klnt wutdd reCpglli7.C as I'.flg(igf'k CUn'lTnc)h SctlsCrGf -for that INAou stiil adheres ta the practicc o1` insistirag foreign law I-,c plsadeat and prouen.t62 So do other mc nzveis Uf ttte i"ontmostwealth_163 !.)etetrrrti"in,c,r 1 rureign f,rrtij •1'earlrcy Civ_R. 44. !(J31, ca,),tio:acd, "llctetmiraatik)n of fnreigct taw," cuntroIs: "A party v0aca ititc:nds to rely on the l,xw of a ftyreig17 cuutstry shall 8ive t10ticc in his plc^tdingg.t or oth.cr a e4ttidnah3e wriLtw rtotice. The court in dctca-tninirzg the law nfa f'areigtz country may consider any rclcvant rnaterial nr snurcc. it)c.lttding testimony, whether or pot s^.ebnuttcd by a party. Thc cotrrt'a clc:tc.nninatie7n iha1l Ix° treatcaf as a rutin.g Un a question of 1zw atad SIixII be tnade by thc court and n®t the juty " Tixe Staff Note to this language states: "TI'lIte rule provides Sor ti?.e u.5e of #cstiRnc^n.y to aid tti.e courf.. T1ie law of a fcrrcil;o coutttry may c7fteta need traisstataott and interpretatiatt by an expert in the particular lGinguagc. Tlie testintotty raf such an expert, out of the hrzring of the jury and not stabjc:.ct to the fbrnaal rules of evidcncc, may be very neces;;ttry to aid the wurt in detern7inizrg the applicability of the particular Iaw." I=or example, the l=ecicrai cotu4s have siuictioned ttle use o!' metr,oranc3a frona legal ri^-sc;:ut:}aers at the Library of Congre.>s.lm Thcs law may be proved hy supplying copies vfthe f0reign Ittws atxd havutg witne.yyes•-who iteed not always be CxPCtts•••-.testify. ()nc cxatnptv arcase last year here in (3XVene Cniinty. A woman who asserted in a divorce action that she was taarried in Itadirt submitted a copy of the law Sce John Mirrtimcr. "Jtutnpo(c wid thc p,ecrnal '1'ri;rngtc," in l(urtapote on '1`re ^1(; 9^) ^g. Ar3riatr Firit,t;s, 't7te C:anftiet of Lue^s (2d cci. 2Utr8) fi, citing 1s.S.W_1..7€. 1)cunberg :c I,►unshe:rg (20II1] NSWCA 87, 52 ArJN and C,lob&r! Ahldtianedia fnternat/.. ldd u.4rra Mccfio .5orva. E.R. ((.:4iIt1417.)t t(){}: , i20061 EWHC (Ctrtnqt.) 3107,1200711 All :" Sce DuntfeWrg, [200 t) lVS WC`,A 87 sqgtjng at II 19, wEtich eatCttsiveIy etiscusses ct;sGa fc>r and a(;aiitsF ihe ryotion of pa'oviitg fomign !aw in csses from Auwakin, Canada, Crtnit Btitain, and South Africa, avait;sbte on-line at wwwAusLlii.edtd.;tt rCA ► (last accessed Feb. 12, 2009). Sw l3uf(a! v. hrrnrilrrrxtiort &- Nutufzrdizra[iwr %vv. (C.A.9. 1994), 42 i°.3d M51 (tul)tv only--iext -it I!?94 WL 684496), citing ln ra Nxxn;^u (E3.i.A. 1976),16 I. &N. L7cc. 6 i, 62; lr2 rr;tkini>/rx 360; ,tfld {';hc Appx. 75 FE13-19-2009 09: 59W From: ID. (aRqYOOhI EiERD Pa ge• 027 R=93y 02/18/2009 IMO 10105 FAx. W028l07$ apl,Ivizi :^uglYt to introduce euicieiicc that the rituals of I3induisiYa had bun obscrYed-azid thus a valid ttxarriage tt.)d bect) citntractctl-----by ofiering t11C t'c.4ittncAiay of her brtsthey--wh(, vaitna, -a,c>d the thund tltis evidence of the law :tncl the facts of tttc titarriago should ltiavV been adtzutfcd by the domestic rciatiosas court.'r^s "(;V+'Ihat does Ti nycan to apply forcigli law: tlla.t is, whiit exactty is tt3c judse asked t:n do? 7•ht: common law understanding is that a judgc, called upaiz to apply Frc;nch or 12uritatziat) domestic law, should apply it as a l rc;tich or Ruritaniatt judge, trying thc mw, tivouid intcrprct and apply it."tr'6 C3ttt first a word abuttt the thorny y qu^^,stiorr tyf' r.iialian and Thc I31.uet^r^nk, Gocrdb)--e 4r, The BItgclxtoktt68 Scarne Clltia cottrt;s Izavc proscribed their own litsiited railes on citing sntarccs -^4ucl! as requiritig parallel citatiotqs to thc &rth l;uYterar Re,ortYr.161 But the closesi nur sUtc wme;s lo proscribing general guidancc is the manual of tlie Iteportt,^ cf' t^)ec' ►sionS.13o That document is understandably silent on how to cite tlqe iiiatexrzats presented berz, e.g. cascs cl(^.^idc:cl k-forc tribunals oi'ttic French Republic and the regulations o1'tbc E-uropearr Union. See tfcynru v Vcrma, 2d Dist. No. 08C,.A 19, --- 0luo App.3d -, 2p0Sd1►lio-6?ti4a --- NeE.2d --, 2t?(1d WL 506486$, ^^°$• 13riM C;onflict at 19. s^7 `11h(: 13tueisookt A L}ni!'orm Systetn ofCitatinn (Harvtn Appx. 76 FE8-16-2009 09s59AM From: zD: CRAI'DUN 1EA11 f'a he: td2B R=93x 02(1.812409 WED 1C.49 Pax a029l078 i'ymn, Lvltx;l3 ls respusasfblC dnr t3tost ot'tllc cilatictras tt) foreign iaw, hn5 italorlxlGd tJ)e C`aurt the Italians have no nfi'rcial sc>iicmc for ctlutx9ils. lscst anyone tl9artk this rcEXeGts a lack cp#' clevc;loPiucut osi tl7e raxt of ltalian jtcrisprt:dellcc, niA ev&n En(;1and, 'A=hich lyas caselaw datang I?ac3( to 1066 and all tltat,"t Ias either ati nliici:tl sc lluaitc or a"real eguivaDct-it" rrf ?he I31a4cahr)r,k.t Jz ^i°l7c Court is awwv of an Italian rtala:.botrk by Jacopca Busnach 17nvenna.t ra 1t ItrBs bmn used for plidanca: cvctt if it dnes--alasi--open with aqtlotc froni 7'he l3laie/ivr,k. The Cntil lG(tASttjts its advice oi1 foreign citiJtions, 174 '1'hc set;tiCms on Italy artcl Friinu in the Tkc 1.)lueCrvr.ek state to give citatiotts t.hat look tluitc strartp to our cycv. Most of our cases at-c ctaptieatacd with a str'aitd`tfotwatd s,Pat•ty v. 1,'wyef form, e.& 1'eirrci1xt1ity r^j' Afanerc^v v. .Slcrlo of hfisai.saitypi.t75 ltali;In,.^ do itot use thc nttmcs oi:the litiga4nts in captioning cabes. Nor do they, as wc sometitncs do, usc dc;sc27iptive labclg,s'r' pa)lulsr na111es,177 the name of a calamity at is.tiue,r's or I7t See Eulctre,^ Amhlii.vhnp of Yvrkv. Sher;f/`erfYo►-k,chim!: (cirr::t 1056-1069), in ftlish I,awsuits fi•c,an William I ica Itichara I(lticitatzi C. van Cdcrac8,ecn ed. 1990) at 1, publisliecl a3 voluinc 106 oi'the Ptahli.cations of ifye Seldctt ixxicty. IV, Bryan A. CGarater, '1 he 331onLntx of 1,ega1 Style (2d ed. 2t)a2)2 89, 't hLVa ia, IutwcvCr, a reslaected nttnl'ficial gttide pTodttced by itic tanivcrsity of Uxrcarcf's 1'aculty of Law, th:; nxtbrd Standrtrd for Citation nt`3egal A.vtltoritias, avaiiiible :jk www.dctinitig.14w.ox.ac,uk/ptit)lishctVcnwJa_.2006.pdr(lw'I nccesscd reb. 12. 2009). "' iacc:lx: t3usttaclt Ravenna, ltcgoic per Bana corretta citriliorx: gitiritiica [3tulcs for a Correct Legal CitvtioatJ (2008), availiattlc on tinc at htt}i:;filsuwps.orgjwp-csantcntttqslnatly; filc'B.cx index.Fxlf (last aiccc:s>cd Feti. 12, 2fl09j. °7 Sec xsrYres l). Gfls'don IIi, Iiow ^iat to Sus:ccad ;et taw Sc:hsaot (1991), 100 Yalr L.]. 1679, 1642 ("331ttetxx,k Isas l9rvviacti t way ta cite every singie sourco siticc alie invssni.icue of pxpyrtts°`), cRueted by Christine Hurt,'Che 13lticbnc>k Yt L'ightccn: Raficctin(; atrd Ratifying Currertt 7('rcttdz in l.cgal Scltalat•ship (2W7). 82 )tyd.I,.l. 49. 49, tn. 4. Iltirt ltas in lx.r:Irticic utllcctecl citatisans to the catensive criticisms uf 7Yw. lthtPlxjok. 17s (1934), 392 11,5. ;sQ, 54 S.C4L 745, 78 L.Ed. 1282. lwl E.g. in rxc Ap,tzlrcutiort o.(flr< LJarlk:tt SYatcs.jtir an flrtdct• r4uthtu*ing the Physical 5errrcft cY".4't>urx:ridtenutrl Pmrrriser urd Pf^zenraul7'rr,perr^^(f'.1_ ;.h.Cx, Junc 11, 1+)$I), in (f,5, Scnatc Sclect Gt>mmiltee on lntetligutce, tninlvnlenration of the >:un:igit Itttel)igeix:c Survcillancc Actof 1978 (1451), S. Rep. 97A80.tt 16--19. mSc:ri:tl Szt volutt3ts 13404; in,r>. ,4f1 4lctttcrx Suh»ritl.-rd to n&-, 12x•c:ign Inac/tigcrtce Sattn.r.r.illancr C.`urn•r (F.1.S.A.C".t. 2002); 218 F.Stiny, 611, rcvtxu:tt sub notta, In rc SeraleJCturt (C":I,S.A.C=t.ltev. 2002), 310 F.3d 717, 190 A.t..tt. d ed. 725; In rr itd'otio» for REk=sc tV'l:ntrrr !tt°corcls Q.I.S.A_C1.. 2007), 526 t°.Su{rp.2d 4$4; IrI re. L)h•c:etive.c !'Ytrsrtmrt to Scctlotr 10313 r4("thr Ntt'•eigtt fntr.tlibencn. Sttrtw,ilkortcr. Ifct(I'.I;S.l1,.(,`E.dte'a'. 2008), 551 ir.:id ItSf)4. 17' 1rscnsrs C't^a'c s (17tttrJuw v. Mirxrt^cht^^tlx} { 18d"1), 4 G CI.S. (S I1otu.) 5 04, 12 I, Zd. 256; Puaaenga^ ("urczr (Smith v. T'rirtsos;) (1849), 48 U.S. (7 lio%v.) 283, 12 I..F.d. 702; SYrnt^>Ittc, hasrsr+ Crtaxc (13altcHct•s't3crrcvadant rlxsn, tafNrcw F')rlantms y, C°resacrrt City Livcstcick Landing crnalS/crnghler-J4rrttSr Co.) (1873), 83 U S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Fei. 394; l.egtrl7e»der {':ases (h:ranx v. /.zl) (187C), 79 [3.S, (12 Wall.) 24 I..r.ti. 2$7; Sinkin,g Ftrtd L.iawrs ((lnivra Pacijra nR. C,`ra v. t/trircrl StaMc) (1878), 99 U.S. (9 (Xto) 700, 25 L.t'.c, 496; 7^?leplxsnc t:ascv (1)oTBtur Y. Americaart Bell TriePhtmt: Cts.) (1888). 126 tl.S. 1, 8 S.O. 778, 31 l.Ed. 863; C:it°i7ltighFs Casex (elrei&rdStcrrex S? Sturrlv's) (1983), 104'(},S, 3, 3 S:Cr. 18, 27 L.Iitt. fi35; 1tE"XiNka t=urrptan C:asc c(1'niruteSler x. Cwrshoav) (1885). I 14 U.S. 317, S S.CL 962, 29 ),.);cl. 207; Chinaae f:xc:ht.caota t.in.ee.r (C,'hucr (.°Ptr.ttt 1'irtg a. 41nltcd Stafes) (1$139), 130 U.S. 581, 9 S.C.t. 623, 32 L.k.d. 106$; c7nld C'Itnme (_arc?s (INuruean ts. Baltimru^e e4. Uhiolf)t. Co,) (1935),294 U.S. 240,55 S.C1, Ai!",, 7C91..Fd. $85,95 A.L.R. 29 of 78 Appx. 77 FEB-18-2009 09:59AI1 From: III:GRAYDON fEPD Page:4329 R=93;. .- -- .>. __ .... _..y QuouI vtn tXie identities of the Ihuigs being sucei c7vrs.'" One Of the casc-N pat senteci to tllc t:.:otttt uses ottly initials for the partics c:vcn though it is ati ordin.}rily coriantcl-cxal dispuEt. (In cottfirava, %yltas ollio courts use initia.s in the caption it is usually to protecl tiic privacy o[' minors.'K°) Just nurnbcrs c,i. c:tsesanti cidte:s shottld be used says 777N Bluchonk, Tltc Cczuat is thus going to ntucidit< tlsrotigh its aiu;ussions 01' fnrcign Iaw witl ► citatiozaa intt:txt4ed to t-ormcy a., much infornlation as possible. It will stat;c lit'at;:ints^" names altd cstherwisc spell things otat to be as comprehensible as passib3e to an f)iiio :4 4iccanay, to 1'ractice d.ax, «ltdl3uinting It is said that <`ojtc picture is wc7rth a thoitmind wctrtfs."t"t Nfany tnore than a thou;:3}ad have been expended to create a Iaictwc of the law te)r this Cot€rt. The best statement of the tibligation of P:st'ties tn prtsvt; ftarCign law cntne,. ^; from the rifth C:irarit whcre the uppeitiitzt-the plaintiff belcrw-hazl an obligation to flrmvc the lbreign law it argi9Cd cor2trotletl: "}t was the (aMciiant.('s burden to provide the legt4 pigment ;ind than paint tfac [lriaa] court a clear portrait o3'the rc>iev,unt [fdreit;rq] law. 'I'1;c [appellant] faited to pr(3vicie ap:il6et ['sic], a pa:inter• tvith a tisable brush, and paijit pctsscssing distinct t4,.ii,ility. '1`hc re.SuEr:ant picture contains jt.eithcr 13.42, Srr.k t"hiakn C:asc (>}.d..st. ,SclxxhJer Pcrtrllt7, L. v Unile(j,Slule-s) (1915)) 1570, 97 A.a,.lt. 947, 2 0.(3. 493; 295 U.S. 495, c5 -9.CL 837, 79 L.Ed. S1cr1.S'relzure C;fasc ()®ttir^,s8owrr ,Shee^t dt !'ute C:'o. x Suseyer) (1952). 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 9E) L.Ed. 1353, 26 A.}..R:?d 1378; Penlagon Pullars Gr.se (New }'®rk 403 t1.S, 713, Wl S.Ct. 2140, 29 1..F.d. 822. ?'/mc,v (.'a: u. Chrilrrd Strdta) (If)71), " E.1;. Irt rt, fk^verly-Hdll.s f=frt Gilrtoifrrn ((`.,A.6, 1982), G95 P.2d 207; In re> Univu C, isrGGitle G'orC^; f3ns Pdand ^)sar^rr ral E31K1pA! dntdr(r in lhacelxber 1984 (C.A.2, 1987), 809 !°.Zd I995), 1674 I95; In rr. 4'imiranali fiaariq[iUsy Litigution 1',Supp. 796; bl re 7errririx113nrnubingt aj"U,S .F.m/dfl.eXit;.4 rn 1:a.vC^ifrlCU (S.L). UhEq l'y' t..g,. Y7ie 1:ulurti (C.A.2 20081 552 } 3eI 157, t?h!o 1860), 8F. Gats 740 (No. 4,504), t;nircvl ,SYw,-.y v, C7nN Hnruirrc113ur (T.D.A10. 1862), 27 b°. ('a.g. 292 ({aa, y 5,945); tinilu! Stule.v v; C7ne d/rimlrvai ►'ed.r o, f C:tmcart eEt Thirlp 8iarrr;is nf Whiskcy (,5_l.). Uhio I865), 27 F. C..u. 281 (No. I5,939); L:»itc-.d,Syarc,r tp. &tJrt H:aadrP.d (;pddir.s of Tnherceu 989 (I+a. 15,036); (OhioS.D. 1869), 25 F. C4s. 71a Clintun 13rirlf;N (1870), 77 I1.S. (10 WaEL) 4.^, 19 1.,.Ld_ 969; Ra-mrip/s (t:liicn^,>n 4 No17hwc Appx. 78 FEB-18-2009 10:00AM 1~rean: ID: N IEAt7 Pase:030 R=93: 02/L812469 Vf-PD 10s06 FAX ^031Jp76 abstract uor reWistic cxl7osition. Civetl tlli4 state of the ait, flic Ttria^j ulurt wtts well wathin its dise>rtatiosaary rtrallAi fo tvtitse to -,iiccpt thty virtually harmt2 canvas avilen it was within tlic ^apf,ell^anf^'s porvcr to preset^t a c tt^^as upon which it ltad etched a clear, at7d visi(>`It: statc:ntent ot't.he applicable (forc,ignj laW.'aRx Axxy E►lartk sl?ot.s on the canvas of Italian law painted by tJic parties befvrc the (:aurt will ix'. filled by it with tlac; htics atid tuictvre,v of Ohica's luw, which t1ie C'.cturt prcbumc,s Io be tlye same as tllat in the fcrrLign,Eurisciiction.183 Evet} if the Cctudt's artist.ir, stylc may be elas.sccl, like Grazidma Mose.S, as "primitive."'m The Court wilt study the chittroscuro:s ot'this ca.se. Prnced u t-c v. Substa nec The first qu"tion is whether Italian or Uhit^a law applies to thte procedural issues of this C:ase, What's the ditTei-4nt:c between procadua^ and sttbst:zrtcc? SuNoncc "covers the tdght5 and duties of ihe parties" while pmccdttre covers how a vvutt determincs what those rights and dasties The cssenti;tl question Igere is wllet.hir the fOrunr selection claus4 ccsrztpLls the t.^^tse to proceed ilr Venice rather than Xetixa. 7'he ftvrtlm'x Xu1c.r Pret'GItI 'I'iac lalv Of the fortarn governs proc;eciure: "A court u.yually applies its own ic>ca1 rulc,^ ptcsc;ribing Ilo^.^+ litigsttiota shtali he conducf.ed evctY when it applies the kx:al law rttlL-s of at>ther 142 J3ryltyxa Ifbcrn^yfs't: ptatca le CU ►limetcr. t+. fJia'c7ich (G.A.5, 1990), 915 1,,2d 1000, 1007 (1p13sEhuit sought to cnfcirGc jadgniemt ot'court of the [:miratt: of Alsu OhaUi, tlns`tcd Aaab Emirm.s.^c, agaipst 'Fcxax resideJtt and i'ailod to prove a rp ticable foreign law). ` Sec F40 I?PP c.O. v. N'c:lxh 89 c3hio St. 31, 105 N.E. 189, pardgraptts one atid two of t8o,yltaturs ("tn ttyc coiirts of this state t#te presutttption ssblains that the law of i6c 8'orum controis the ri,2hts of t#ie;yorrties to thc litigats`ott. Wherc it is claitncd by either party that the law of another slatc or tif tite llnitcd States appfic% tss the exclttsion of ti ►c la:w of thV fimun, the tar.ts upon which such cl Appx. 79 FEH-18-2009 10:00AM From; ID:G2AYf7[!N HCRD Pase.031 R=93y Q{f3LI Ula stttte to tvsctlvc other issuc:s i.ta thc; casc:."1s6 ''his has iotig bcc;tt the rule.187 1°13c isaue ax ►incx ttp most of'ten as to sttt#tatc..^; c:l'lizzlitatioris.ts8 A clxaicc of larv ciau.se oply adopts ilse sttbstatativu f,att.; ()f thc law tr ►d t»t its ptyzcecIut-al asl7ce:ts unless Uw partics make it clcar tlicy atrc; ^tcu;pting Ihe prex;ct3urLs ' as wcll.Ttae compilers Uf the Rewerterrrent said this: "PattiLs cfo tivt u.yttaily givc thought to matters cat jtst-l ►ciaC administration Yitafore they c;itcr into legal tt;s.us.ctions. They do not rxsuaFly pface reliance on the appiicabi}ity of the ruJcs of a partirtzlar Burisdietion] to uses that woutci arise only i1' litigatapn shottld tic;cUme uece^. ^:iry. Accordingly, tllc partiea have no cxpcolaiiom as to such cve.}ztualities, and there ir; no danger of unfairly diss ►ppoiazting their hopes by applying ihc foxtam's rules in such MattCrs.'"90 'I'hc Restcrkinent says t[tis dtppMachi is sinaply practical: °'L norrnots burdens are avoitfcd eVhen a court appli^.^ its owi3 rulcs * "'r . T'zutl ►crniore, the burdens the e:e,urt sparc.s itsclf would havc txx:n 4vAstvtl effort in most instanc,es, becatesc ttstlally the decision in tllc cxtsc would not be tiltcrt d by apptYring t.he csdtet' statc':; a ulcs of judicial aeimirti.on. l3von i i` the a.l{ltcotnC would he ;;ltcrc;ds ltowever, tht: foruagt will ttsttatly apply its p-M-s aule ii'tbe issuc ptisnarily cc>ixerns judieial `s1tjI7aitiistreiCio%1,"e.g. statutes of lirPF}tations t?t t9a ^cs1,1tc:nlCf)t of $;1w, Sccnnd; Ccrntiict ot'Lavvs ( 1971), sectian i 22, p:9_ 13rsi tt Larrix (t;insinrla4i Cammercial Ct. 2851), $ W.I.J. 29.5, ;(}hia D= 363; ,Slrxf Appx. 80 FEB-18-2009 20:60AM From: ID: rRAYDQN HEAD Page:032 R=93 % 9211812899 xEn 10:05 FAX aC33/078 It is ]3t7SSib1G to ;3fIQI7t the proc.Ctllti'eS as WCI$ and substance. In a contract clu,osing l)utrh I.iw :fl1d a Dutch court, the (:ot14Yact :iiei(I (Ii3llltt.[;5 would "be CJctCaTlzirAcd in accUrC3itijcL witll the I,1w (tnd pracEic:e" of Datcli c,ourt~k. 'llicA word "practicc" wa., held to be plain ianguage adopting btnlj Dtateix proceclural .anti substanti< Ilvw stiouid a clYnica; of` fotuttt b:; classed? "Whether a(usrrtractual lbrudti clause is substantive or procccfur-al is a difficult qtatvsiican. C3.n the one fsand tlx clau.w sietennirn;s venue and can hc cnnsi(3ereci procedural, but on the aihc,Yr, Ghoic>r of forum is an impoi iasat contractual right of the partics.'>19 3 L;nquip'w rclittnu: on Ohio t:iw is "We. [,4]chilles 3icG1 of I:nquip'S motion [for judgment on t110 pleading,.^]," says Tycon." (YI7(: C.l9ttT[ will i'Lftr to the dC'fL'n(3arttS cCfglCCliYely r'1S; '-TycUn" iratil 1tet-e on.) Rathcr, it is Tycon's rc,li.utcx: on Ftaliatl 4uncl Florida law titraa is flawed. l-loricta will bc discusscd lirst_ FZoridcr Law I.s lntappl.icrtlslr 7'ycon spencts agrcat deal of space in its bricl' oii Florida law, claisning t1tat qtate's courts wc7uitl Iltivt applied the law of li-alx and Lttf(arrLfl 1I1C ft7rum &CECctit}[i cli2ilsLS.195 A Florida Stiifi:tte, is a ci1Ct1.9 rU So w'e decisions iar the Florida Supreme C'ourt,3" the 1°lot•ltla District Courts of A,,' "t'^tsS !^?8 P"2 I;f1 sl9rrsulaure & M1'utrii3ora, L.L,(-' v; . ac:e F,urvpc:ass G'rmls. Ltrl. (I7.K.,ut, 2U),416 F_Su}ip~.2d 1()54, 1076, T°'araatl Appx. 81 FEB-18-2M9 10: H1RM From: ID: GRA`lt?DN HEHD Pase:033 R=93y 02/1$/2909 wlsn 18; D7 aAX 0t334/079 and tltc U.S. L?istt°ict Court for tlse, Sotstlaoxt District ni' Flctridry.",, 'Tyevun niakei these arKumetit,s bccuwG l;nquip atycf its ownut-, brought an earlier ve•siott Of this -Wit in tfic couris of Fltaridal-00 and l-inquip is bascd and incorporated in tlte Sunshine Statc. i'yeotr itsclf.^Vrite; "it is tlta IuwoflittlY, na,ttli-it ol'Uhio tfrF'lnrida, wfiicll is useci to govern and interpret the [cotttrac:lj'az)t and •'it i, niz•ti°iau,,e, dtaiir7n iaw tq)plieh Zcsz q-liis c asc is not in rlc>ridtt, 3t is in ()laio, What the I-lorida courts -t.votricl do with this issue doe^.s n(tt appear relevatal here. 33ecau.sa the partics chose 14a1iun law in thcit-u ►ntr•ae:t and arc in an Ohio court, only Itali4Yta or Ohio law is appropriate. The Couit wonders if'1"ycon is ,wculptin}; to I°ecycle a brief }arctsarw for tltc F]orida courts by .subtlaitt.in$y it to this one. All the Florida law cited is thus irrelevtint tu this case and the Court ltas ncither read nor considered any oi'it beyond plac.^ing the citntion.s zn, the t'nutnote,s. Ztalian law is said to apply here and it must ttow iic considered. Ana} to gct there we will t;tkr Tlic scc►tic route through the Lnw Countries and the fte de Faincc. TCIt's Teiesda;y,']Cbis Must Be t3elgium •l'ite C>'ourt 11.o`v arrives at ttte first okiect oi '2'ycon's affections, a 1968 European treaty c)n ]rtursuzts lcttown u.s ttxc l3rtt.ssct4 C:0nvcntfoa.2(}3 So it is off to ii}c 13ctgi^^tta cAspita]. f» Namerx v. 1+-P/Y,SL'A1 7r1Yny 11 (Aut;. 1, 2006), i.I,l.i'la. INp. 05•61626-CIV. 2006 Wl. 362lz.±tll, citing .4llsrnctlire Delitar.ry.Soltrtinrax lnd v. !#.R.Da:nn,e(ly & Sctn.s Crt. (July S. 2005). W.IJ.Tcx. iVct. ("iv. SA-0-t".A-0I7?-XR, 2005 WI. 196263 1. 'W "Cotn6ine;e! Motiwls Meniorak7clunm" at l, rn. 2. 2ot Iti :x6 S. ia3 Pd. at 7. Cottvicegtiun on Jurisdiction :u}d tho t;tefcmxmcatt of JucfgIncsrts in Civil and C01111crtercial b4atters, SL^pt< 77, 1988, 3 Comnxin Mki. Rep. (C{'.t3) 16003, 1202 U.N.T.S. 153, 8 I.L.M. 229, available can-finc at the wcbsltc of the t;airc>pmrn Gcaurl. of3ttsticc ,at httpJ/eurix.curr^paculconitnoea!rccdoc%onventic^tt/cetlc-tcscics! t+rux-textes>ittm (Ira am-cssed )-ch. 12, 2tt(l9). 7'his is not to be cQnfiaaeet wittt tljc pn:uiy other pacts conctutlW in fite Tielbtan capital also known n,v I3ru3sels Convcotinns tvhich the C;otart Itas conic ncrctss in its rascarch. Most rcTcrcaca; in tbe c.asctaw ara to tlec Convcttticm far the tJEtir,cxlion of ixrtain Rules Rc:ttttin6 tn Ritis of Ladiaa& Aug. ?S, 1924, .51 Strst.: 233, 1'5. 931, 2$evasts 430, 121) L.N.T.S. 155, with solna references to two othrr ns,^trftilnC bp,t•ocnvnts: thc C:e,nvcnlic,n for the Unitication of Ccrt.su RItIcs of Law Wifh Itespecl to C'oliisicms 13etwecn Vessc8s (the Ass'ss-(antx;md.Wv^^gc Convention), Sclx. ?,3. 191 t1, 37► Sttst. 1658,'I'.3: 576, 1 i3cvans 780, 2t2 C .T.S. 187,1;'I'.S. 19I3 Nta. 4:tnd TIte Convention Relating to thc Anxst of Sc:trUoinb :;hip.+, May 10, 1052, 439 I3.N; I°.S. 193, 53 /13a2.3.irttih',ral.L 5:19, U,K.'I:S. 1960 No. 47, C;nmt{, 11424. ("tJ.N1'.S: ' is tlle Unitcd Nations 'I'tt:aty Ss'rit, "I.L.M." is Intet•natioi3al Legal Matcriqils, •'l3.7'.S:' is t•he I3ritish 7)-mty Serics, °"U_K.T_S,.• is ilte United Kinpetotn 'rre:ity ;;eries, .'CmnO." is a "Cornrn:tnti P:tper" taict bcfore tfte 13r°itisit 34 of 78 Appx. 82 FEE7-19-2009 10:01AM From: It?:GRRYlat3N HEAD Page:034 R=93x 02118P2009 wsD 10:07 gtix. 0635/078 Ifi°hat.r 1311r.stic:1.v llvt to Do Y{'41110 T}t:011 bcgirls it,-, ddscuti-sion of ItttlialY Iaw "Iit.h the Brussels Ct.^n.vc;tltinn of 1968. XtaEy is a slgnRtOry.'l7te C,Tnit.vd Skxtes is not, 7`ycota notcs.`04 T ►te ltal'taras satifjed tlte convctitiun in 1971.205 Tycon tetls the Court tht: convention E1is bcul nlodified scv'cfrtl l'tines wtih a notc to "see" varicsus ltziliiui Jaws and t.rcatgcs---l:tut witiynut Provictxng My ofahe itctns they cited.znd 'Yhey alsO oirer a citation to the anic;rlded treaty witllUut stapplyittg a copy.207 Tht'.: rctcv:irtt latagttlge in the l3ru>*eis Ce,nvmlioli, Article 17, reads: "I3'the garties, onc or marc of' whom is dnnaicilcrl in a Contracting State, have agl•c.cd tlt,at a c;ourt or rltc courts of a C.nntra<;tittg State are tv llava jurisdiction to scttlc any disputes wliic.h have arisen or which nlay arise in c cXc}usi ve,iut-isciiction." 110, (;ourt Pauses for a note on tbe- text ot` the C;anventiott•. 'T7te Court qontes i'trirn the English text of the treaty printed from the Acb-site of thc European t'r.:ourt of.ttl.stice. lvhct7 E.nciGits Parliatl2Ctlt by t:be executive, °C,TS." t, thc Consolittittcd Treaty Scries, atld "L1V.T.S." iS the l.ctt,cte ot'Nations't'rcaly Sc.^ries:j 7^ "( CItT)t)tEIlslltloflot1S MCtrit38:t1ttjltPn" at 14. tZiBtitica ed r-tCGI77jCIttC DGllit (,'onvettXlO)1e Cottd:crtlL'n(B (it Competenze Gi9ristli'l,iot)itlC C L%-sCc=tutec 1)ts1I8 1JEcishtiti in ivlatcria CivEla e Coinmcrciale e Protocalto, Fh7nasts a I3tizxCllcs il 27 Sc.ttcrnbre 1968 (Itatilicatinn and .trXectttiatt oE'tbe t:onventiott on JuridisdictDOnal C.ontl)etcnec ani3 ?.?»forecmexst of JWClbtaentx in Civil iutd Coattlncrctal tvlattc)w nttd ttle Ass®ciated Protcacot, Sii•med in l3russcls on ticptcmbt:r 27, 19691, Laly Nv. 804 of Jun. 21.. 1971, Gasx. [Jft: No. 254 of Oct. 197 ]. °Gazz, t13Y.° is the CiUZSettu Cricra(e dt:dkt 12cVrrbblica 1trslianrt, the otlicial galCttc: of IhL lt:alian t2ep)thtic, tkit nation's cyuivalezitt oi"Ihe 1° Appx. 83 FEB-18-2009 MOlAM From: ID:G2RYDON (-it:AD 1'ase:.035 R=93% 02/23/2009 e,En 10:47 Pax a436/D'YB >uPpliui a cofay frotaD: tliat sourcc and qtEoteci Yt, ^l'yc:on cutTlpltt4ncct ..Fng1islg is not otiC of the offici^tl lz119u>agcs farr the t3rtt;rsels Ccuzventio», and an JcctDratu ccarnprerhe"spoq, rt;quires aQlrcful reading of tt3c text in l°rcnch or anttthcr c,fficial language by a fluent lawycr.°'zs'r Yet Tycon, in responsc tu tIie: Cotfrt',s rcquest for cnpics c.sf foreigtt legal materials l,xotlD in tht:ir original laarguabes ,tnd in tr--ttislttticm, h;ts now %ulSplieci the Court with the eaac:r sunte 4<,)V as l:nyt2ip t3rovided. Ajthough t:ingiish was not an ofiiLivl langEiage for tlae original For'sttyn of the Coryvcntlun,' now says Tycon, "it l^c;came tDat offci need for a ta-afncc!! French ervocu.t 13as now been waived by Tycnn. 'llic Court waisdcrx why it abject'ecl c-isxginally. Gallir cattnsc;l Nvould cnretc in handy now lvc:ausc we are oifto Firtna:e. 1''ive la rrcmcel 7 cD add spic c to it; fixjtDitlabaiswc af' fiDreign 16Tw, 'Iyc,on c:rosscs thL Belgian frtyntier to ciie a case of the Court c>Crlppeals of Vcrxaillcs, T'rsnce,R1',f'1'ru A9crrk Iru:. t^ Ergecu, ]t is otfef'ed in support of the ciaixars rtaai,ie abI out the 13russcls Convcntian, t^3ecactse t!'c corltDact at isxtyc here said the p;3rti(-N chose (talian law to govern tlteir diyptDtc, the defeaclatnts say "it is nbviotis" Italian law altplie:.-i.?'E So wlly thcy shotfld then citc a f;ri;n4h court c.Dsc is unclear. 'i`his case is tl3e only ().nc of the fnctr foreign cases laid before the C`ottal involving an American party. If wns nperating in Thc hEc;therlaDttls and uD lxtiji;4tion witlt a 1.'rerDCh ccstnpratDy. Hoth 11a4 Netherlands and FDanr .,.c are p,-trtics to the Conventiun_ I3trt "thc c:ornpanytj 13s7' !'ro ^"Reply In ,Scippoai oi'Dereadants` MoEion for Judgancrti on the Ylendingx," at S. fin. 4_ See aLin 8rus6ets Cr„tyeation, ArticE4 68 {•°7'taix C:onycntum, drawn up in a surgts; ariginaE in the Uutcla, Fna7ch, C;e:nr fouc tcxtx hc;in;; ixtually authei ►tic $* +."). ►ap, yid 3taiian fangetages, ePt 2""`:D+:4on Appx. 84 FEB-18-2009 10:02Rht From: ID:G2AYDtJN HEAD F'ase'OM R-93; yy...... 02l1812009 WEp i4107 PAX Mark, tnc.(,J taad a pcrmanc:xxt e,st:l}7lishtilCnt in '1'lte Nethcrlau}cL5 duly }iccszseci." L;nqui}S is an Anicricttn company 3nd the C.ou9.17as not b^.en sltovvn it was doniieiled or ret;is,tcrcd in any ctiutttry subject to the Brussels Convention. Iie l;reizcla court enforc:u} Amsterciam. As tlBc parties operated in Franc e and Tlie Ncthc:rlancis the case is ciistinguishaliEc f°rout tlxis oite. And witlx that., it is back iacross Flaztders fields to I3rus5e}s. !he E 11 's°Gtan0hurfv+ts 1^'a•rtnz n A ragulation of the Europtc:.tn Union, h^aclquarteretl in BrusseEs, appears in lycon`s tricf.212 I'lic regulatinn is a tvvciity-twn page doct.,naezzt, No cites to particular pagcs or paragrarhs atz° oCCcrc:cl, nece4sittttitag a slog thraug1i the eniim docun2ezt.t to find why it interests the defense. it :ippcan the rcgu9ation extencls tlYC Bzttsscls Convention regime to atl members oi'the i3tiion,Zt3 13ttt the rogulatiati is like the undetl;yinl; convention, seenting,ly ijrelcvant to an American plain.titl: The regulation speaks .re}Seatcdty of "persons cioataiciled in a Member Stxic.s214 li speaks of ciefendants '`not domiciled in a iVtenrbcr Statc: °21f 13tat notliint; about }alaintIffs in countries outside the tJnion- ]Zi thc 1aaYguage ztio5t rc:.ieva»t, Article 23-the homologue of Article 17 of the I3jv.ysvIs Convention-states "[i]f the p.vtic^^, onc or morc of whoni is domiciled in a Me'n}ter Ist:tte, have agreed that a cotart or thc courts of a Menxbcr State are to havc ,juttsdiction to settle any clisputes which fiave arisen ** * that court 'x * -`' shail have,juriscliction_ Such jcttisdictiora shall be exc}itsivo unless thL parties have agreed otherwise." That wotttd sccm to support Tycoa>.. Whether that nppiies laerc must be thc nexi consicienrtion, 'flic C:ourl lottks back ;across tho Athwitic to hovv the Brussels C:o1'ventaon has been received otx tttese shores. "z P "Cotmci I Regtilatiol7 (FC) No. 44l2001 cs3'22 !]Lecmtfcr 20(Pt1 q0,Fta°iadictiean and 1lic raceagnitiatt and c.nforc.crreentof jutlgincnts in civil :tnd cottiiljcrclal ►nalters," 2001 OJ. (1, 12) 1. '`"k!. Preface at p.sngraph 5. ao4 ^.g. id. at ArtiClcs 3, 5, 6. zts F.^. 1d. at Articles 4. 37 c►i`7$ Appx. 85 FES-18-2009 10:62R'1 From: ID:GRfR`fDON 1-t<^A3 Pa9ee037 R=93y 02/1812009 WEtr 3.0s 08 g13x a038/093 knt.ric.°t.trt (:'orcr•ls Rejecting tlre C.'oravCotdicm 'flte Cottil is awaru of ins-tanccs of Amzk'ican courts Convention. '11ic Southena District of New York rejected an cffort by a Irrcneh defendant being ..Rte;dt b y an it,a3ian islaixztiff tc> use the 13russc.is Cvtiversticnz itt their dispt ►u,--but tliat wa5 a tort ca.5c over zi 4hi}»jreck.21(` It^ ^ cetntt^ct uisea th` I Te^tthct'tt 1)i4irict c^f'lltinuis c3tx Jizted to :t^ply r;,ttictc I7 of the 13rtt.yseEs C'onvetttion t,) a pcrmiss;ve Fortrm selection clause to make it into tatt exclusive clatlse.z;7 1.7$c C`.oeut f•xtids p;n'ticatl;u-2y rclcv3ilt a C'onnc:rticut crz.^;t; with facts snnilaz' tv ih%s cme.2t8 7'licxc a c:otitract bc:tlvccn 13ritisia taltd Italian c:onipuies said Fi;rtl'zan law we7ulti gnverrs it. "1'4ic parties "efmt[c:d] the C:rsttrt nf' iV1ilazt at.s c:isnipetent cerurt:'x'9 '1"ht; Connecticut Sitpcrior Court found italian law govcrnc;ti as to whether or not tlse contracl had an exclu:;ive; forum setectiun L)a.ilse, but, based on tlie 1aw suhtgtitted to it, that ltaliau iaw---int:tuciistg the i3rtsscl5 Gonvent.ion---- w•nuJd nut tnandate ihe litigation be ctztzductc,d cxc.lttsrvely in Miian 2z° Arnerfcarr C:our[o .4ppdying the Cvtrtieniiurr The Co2art Izt>_s aistt has fotrnd three cases `vftctt: tlie CUnve3 aticsn ha- i-*eta applied on tttese sltores. Fit-st is fio2n tlit Supremc Judicial Court of ivfussichusetts;, Acre partics to a contract chnsc M,,twacltu5etts law but a French f'ttntna.z^t 'I•hat wuzfi found only t1tG C6nvcnti(yn would require the 2ta {'.^trbatrcrdc S,pA. P. $urrau Yerilc^s (Nov. 20, 1992) S.B).1d.Y. No. 92 Civ. 1459, M2 WL 367122, 419, ftt. 2, quntinb t'tes7at=ent of the Law, 'lltird, Thc P`on:igtt it,clatiohs I.asw of'Yfte Unih:d Stntag (1997), s,;ction 324(1) (",9n futeriiativnxl ;sgreencent (tocs not create eitttcr oblipttiuir: s-w ripj ►ts for a third smte witltctut ite comcnt"), $11 .flF-7'ech fnahrarriv.v, laoc. v,1'"rciFrrg F.leclrvrri4, GmIsH (Aug. 5, 198$), N.ll.i11. No. 87-C-1 t}690, 1988 Wl.. 84719. zss See iDl; Nurlh ;lrirarYi:a, lirc. ti. illvsr.4wvnrrn, 8.p.A. (Sc.-1Sl. 9, 1999), 5tipcr. Ct. of Conn. No. C:V99058059, IiX13 WL 773R3i 1, Id. at *8. Id, at *13, citing ilte Ccrrtc di caxyaritnoe, Dcc. 20, 1995, No, 12971 anti Curte di caswiosic, Mar, 25, 1994, No. 2915. L`anrhridge Gioleclx C.'nrp. v. J'r7slearr Sanufr 1litaf t►vxiicx (2000), 433 Mass. 122, 731, 740 N.F,.fiti 195. 38 of 78 Appx. 86 FEB-113-2009 10=02AM From: ID: CzRAY!?ON F1FRD Pa 9e : ea39 R=93 : 02118120$9 ATBII 14: Q9 FAX a0391075 French coUt'ls to sLCc:pt the case :itficr it »^as cfi5inisscxi in Nihssai:lyu.setts and did i,ctt ccin.5idcr how the Fec:jtcla cc:utts tivotrlti treat f'orunise:lectiola clatits45.221_ The second tx}ettes Cronl tltc Vnurth C;ircuit. It cu#urt.c:d a (brum selectiott clatt.se can the hasis of Article 17 of the I3ru.^;sel:; Cn)tverrtiran!'a In ilzat cas4 cltuscn by tlt.e p3rtic.s, l.xIxecnbcaurb, were submitted. 'ncase affidavits stated the C`,onvci.ttiun rc>cittired tynl7crldittg tltc farum selection clause a.s exclu.sive."'4 F3ut that CAw is dist151gt1IsIIflblC. 'IlIC party contcstisag the clawu; had operated a btt:siness in I'.ttxembvutg which was natae»>alii..eci by that country; the CC?ntract settling tI1e riatinna{izat7on in{;7tttle.d ttie forttin sel:ection clau.ae: '1`hc contract was negociaftd and signCd in r,uxernbourga. 'I'lic parties wt,*cc: all opCratiztg in a country which had agreed to ttae Co2zventioit, tia7likc: lzerc where the plaintii`f's 3tside in a coutatry that is a stranger to the treaty. 7'lic )"ottrtlt LirLCtit a3z-o rtiled based on the trial c:ourt's f ndings on lAixmhc}urg lttw, which may be nothiitg like Italian law. 'I'he tltird ccfrne.S ficsnt the i^:listrict of Kaltyas. 'lhat case discussed the firusi4ls €."inventiojt :tned the E -IT. regulation in relation t.u a contruct choosing the law and forum of the Is•'ether9ands..225 '1"he C onvCntioi7 and tI1C regulation were fotliid to apply I7ecattse the Co13ti'tSct liad chosen f7utch procedures to apply, The l'edm1 c(}urt: found there was a rebuttable prisunzptiUn t:ncler th.e r-U. rc:,^ttlation that a cltoice of fortrm was an cxclusive c boice.n6 But as fnnd as the t'outt is of ihc e^cp>rts of f3elgiuni--Attdrey 1:-feisburn, 'r'!tc Snlurfx, »aftles, atzd l,yspectcsr Poirot-thc:. C;on`cntion aiicf the suNrsedittg JAlropcan Union rcgulatiait.s alonc are in:.idectuate to sway it and must resort to ttlc ltaliai.z law orfLicd by WhirchcQri v. C>ranrt I)nrtsy ufLP^zcn,lsv,a K tScpt. 11, 194$), dth Cir. Nn; 97-27t?3, 19h$ Wt. 9574fi3. ''A ici.at*S. '"i ` Ttl A},>rfcu(furr: & IYulrition, L L. C. v. Arc Farropeutt C,"rutrp. Lfcf. (t>.1Kari. 2006), 416 F.StPls?d ! Q5d, t p7rs. 2,('Id. at 1079. 39 t3f']$ Appx. 87 FEB-18-2009 10: 02AM Fr om: ICI: GRRYDqN 1EAD Pa se : t339 R=93 % 42J1812803 t;re13 l0a OB PAX 14040/078 Tycon. It argues Italy wtsuld itltcrplct il]C !.c)i'tinl selection Gtatu.SSy as Goiltert"in(; exclusive jut•isdic:titsn on the Venetian eourt_ So xrc siow arrivt` in thc "Ilarads•!se of exile.ti,lta}v."`xa Our Gt-and Toti)r of Law 12eaehcs the ^ucetae of Natiians"s .fyeolt cites a 1995 Itahatt taw.'-" 'Ilirr,c Italian cotirt cases aiis, citc;d, two frc'm the itafiatt suprc me coilrt2?° a.nd a third 1'rc)nz t,cttoa:231 Tyccm also suhnYits a stat.enient oi"its itaiian counsel. That 4tatcmcnt is frnm Claudio C=ac>sr:r:a, a lavvycr witls the Milan firrii of Ilnto»eelli, (`.ocu«a & Associati. kic recites his credcntials: a law degrca froni the t3niversity of Siena; a tztastcrs of law as a 1`tilbl•ight Scholar to the Univcrsity of 1'ennsylvania; atid his auttiorsflip vf a chapter url It:aiian law in a treatise."z He trntislated into English the Italian tzyateriarls cited by `1'ycon after the Court ordered trs+nslaitictns be subt'iittLd. (La f'nrte non pm-lrr Icaliuno.) Cc>tTurza 6utcs; "`rhe Brussels Convention a.S aunendcd, ratilled and cnforced in ttaly applies to art agency agraetrsent betwwn an ltafian party and any atlicr party, Ntihethrr tiZ c other party i4 domiciled in a Contracting State undcr the t;carsvintion or not, provided tile parties have agreed that a court of Tt:al} or of any atbcr Cozxtr.icting State shait be coritpctcnt. fca that case, the identafied cOcrrt will havic exclusive.jurissdi4tion." Ii.c writes a "reference to a judge's or a c:aurf.`s °c>onipetenco' sh(7uld be understood tt) niurn thc cc>url`s _iurisclictioti and authnrity, atot its capability" and "it is not necessary f ='' Pere-y Rystiitc. y?telley, ]iytiata and MHddott} (1819) i. 57, iti NrisQDuntaus l'uc rn5 (1824)1117. *4 t°ynCa MOrySt)tl, An 1tUi4Yilry 0Aff18iY1tYfs I'li5 I't3n Yeers }•'Yitvett rSroCt'ti+h illC TwC1YC 11C}n3it)ltNn Ol' Vartn.9ny, Bolinier-tautf; itVt'9tfA:rlafld, Nctherland, )7enmarl•e, i'oianef, 1r.dy,1`urky, Francc, Engiwul, Scotianci & lrclattd (1617), t-cpritatccl in d'iltc itinarnry of f'ynes Moryson (1908) a€ 75 ("ltzly, wnrxhily vat#cd itie (Zuecno,>f NationK, can nevcr be starricie.ntly praised"). 7`"' ltifcrrrna dol Sfstemx Itntiano di Dirotto lntcrna4ionitt3e Privaua jReCorm of it:tiian Systcm ofCunt•ticts oflaw],1.aw No. 218 of May 31, 1995, t;aax. tJff. Stappf. Ord. no. 129, 3une 3, 1995. Ttu: t":our( balieves this is the same law ictcntiticd i>i the "CoJnla'ttteti Motions Memnrandunt" at 13 mq the "t.:iw No. 215 tsf May 31, 199$." `}B (•hopora r. G. R. S. r!., t::78s.. su. tut_,1Jce. 13, 1994, rio. 10620 ttttd StrrKcn, &d. Y. Trtax.ntiam, S,YL. (:ass , st 2 Ut1., Scp. 27, 2006, No. 20887. "Cass." is the Cone di L:as°sa7,iona, [bv Ittsliaua stqiremc ccturt. "Scr. un." the atstrreviation of Site Italian fur "nnitcd xczsions." Tr`sbunale e'li C;cr►a7vn iGcnoaj, Ser V9 I'6th sessiouJ: Pch. 16, 2007. Tbc iitigdttts tter+a are rc:fixrcd to by initiafs, G', ,Sp:.1< i+ R. "Sex. VI" is ttie Slxth Section of the Cotfrt. No Gssc natttfxr is givt:,z in the mplion but fimm the courf's order VLvp in tlzo npittion, it Yppears to be Nos. 1a647102 & 17796/43. ux C.omuurat fa) Age,u.y and 17iviributiotF Agreenoents (3d eet. 1999). 4iluC78 Appx. 88 F'ES-18-2009 20:03AM From: It):GRAYULN f-IEAD Pa9e;040 R=53% 02/18/2009 WEtt 10:03 aAx 14A311Q73 state tl►;tt the cotrtpc;t.cne;e Or.jurisciictinn of an yNtsulci be re;dkkndaa3i"" I-]e cc>ttitirtues: .`For a civil disl)tttu arising frolu ati internatic5nal u}mt,acrciai rtgrecnzunt hc twcezi ati Italian party and a lrarty domiciled 4lsi.wllrrc, if Italian law applic.", Italian cniarts would have jurisdictiotl (a) eknccrc tliL rlc:i'endatll is ati ltaiiata doirticiliary (ir re4Tidei?t, or (b) e.vlictizct- the ciefendraiit is ;in Itra)f:ui ^iotniciliary or resident or not, it'tho partie<; have agtrcd in writing tt^;^t atl Italian iaurt is competent, cxcltts%t'c juts^ciictiUt^ is only in tlie court sc3 idcntiticd." 'llias Court aes two probletiis with Cocur.r,u's statezlietit. First, ii is styled in the form of an affidavit-it bcgitis with talk of "pc;naity of perjury''-but it bears only C«cu7,72:'s sigtaature and tv,,Lq neither acluaowledl;cxl before urhattever ti)e Italians call a not:try IaUblic or conuuisstoricr ofwths nox watne,s.scd. Tlyerefnre it does not qualify as an alladavit. Scconcl. the Court finds itself in the sanie difficult position as thc Sottt.barn i'}istrict of New York when it was also asked to apply Italiata ltrw.: "Rathor tl7hn uEYicr independent eXpcrt testin:nny, ttie parties izave suhntittcd affidavits iiotn tlicu owtt wunsd * * * .'tbcse suhmfssiatis lsrovido ai) ittstnTtcicait basis fior us t`) r,^o41x a deternnination concerning the relevant ltalian [a3w. The submissions are (iom int.erest.ed sources whci may be tiioti`ated to .ittstifir their own prior conduct"','-,' Tlge Cnure does not qsestioal C;Ucul:ra'ti c:rcdetitlals but IYis bias. He is an interestcd party. thtder our rules, iawyers mtly not tc.^stily in their cliCnts' Gasc^;. We bar this as a lawyer is an advocate aaid quite rig3ltly will side with lzis clietYt. Any testinlany he enio,t 6ide is biasCd----L-; it sitould sutcc attorneys are to ;;ealtrusly rcpresz»tit their clt'ents. But as indc;petidcnt cvicicrx.cs of the 233 Fi:^t^teaaPt A9i7rinr ^".rtr^r. (%ttiwetr^ Lltl. v. Glofin! 7irnetrau/ ck f,'r)rttrri^c^ Sc iti%Cr:Y (Nov, 9, 2000), S.D.N.Y. hGa. 94 Civ. 14544, 2000 Wt, 16$3449, at 19. 41 ry!"7x Appx. 89 FEB-18-2099 10: 03W From: IDo GRAI'DON HE'AD Pa9e: @41 R=93 % ...... ; . ^ . . -^...... ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^^_ . :.. i .._ ^. . ^^ ^ : - 02118f2009 arSD 10;09 FAX a0421078 st Itrxtdcol S1utldGs .1"ycc7n states it is "t:EtC general princ:ipte of Italian domestic law th4t the defendant must be sued in its domit ile: '23S tt citcs to the first parrsgxtrph U[' the third artic:le oi`a :995 law.236 13ut the tratisl.atiou they sup,plicd o['th;tt paragraph reads: "Italian jut°isctictic>n exists wiren titc dt;ferndant is dptnicited in or is a resident of Italy, or ha-4 a representativv i3uthc)rizecl tcy iippc;tr in a legal procc:c;ding in accordartcc with Ariiclas. 77 of tl3e Givit Pr(x:t=durc Ctide aad in all other casOs provided by Iflw.'y It also relies on Article 2 of the Brtrsscfs Convent.itfti, which rcad.s: "Subject t0 the provisions of this Co;tvcnticyn, persons dotnicilad in a C:ontrAc:ting State shal1, whatever ttaei:r natiayrality, be sued in the courts of that Statc. !'c,^raon1 wliv are not nationals of t1ic State in whieb tlicy are domiciled shall be governcd by the rules of jurisdictiun applicable to natioatals of that State." Astticle 2 is silent ott wlat to du with parrtie-% wlio arc domiciled in nations suLh as the ilnitcd Statc.-; wlzich are not "Contr"actizig :it.ates'° to the Conventiort, i.it% the situatito:a tiere, Neither the siatute nor tlZ e ec)nverttaon supports 'T'ycola's claim "the tlcl'endant tntrr< be sued in it5 dornicilc."07 Ratlzer, the Iaw sound4 like a basic tenet of American ,jurisprudettce that a defetidant ,rruy be sued wltctr, lte is domiciled. 'I'hr.rc is trothing; anandatory in tize latlguage qttutcd. 'fi'ycutx furt.her claitns the statute ;uad convention, ccrmhizted tvitit the foruin selection clause in the contract, "nt3ndatetsf" Enquip sue '('ycoit in Vealice.7'16 A, tltc tcat of the statute docs not suppot-t Cf'. %urrefl T.iitHt. Irat;v. Gvhnnbnt (.`r:lkr•P'cr{t C'oep. (S.T3.1+I.Y. 1997). " F.Supp.2d 118, Iw$ (trluLue}, J.) d`"11qe ccotif i+c.,tinaz ot' [r3efaydants'j tEalian lawyer is instiffioient eviatence of fisrcian law t+eCriuse he is nttt a ctisintetrstcd eyert ntid hats provided t°tttta basis for;wk..^roirig his expertise or weigiting t ►ig crgrinicsns"). "Cambincd Moticxns Nternorarx}um" ctt 13. "").,,'tw No. 218 of May 31, 1995, 35 I.L.M. 760. it also identilicc3 in thr "°C'umbinr,ti Motions lVicrnorsndulri' as .'l.aw No. 215, Muy 31, 1998." x" Empttasls by ttas C:oiut. P:''C:®n)bxned Motions Memorandum" at 13. 42 of 78 Appx. 90 FEH-18-2009 1II: C3.3A't F r om: Ip: GRA1't3ON HEPD Pa ee : 042 R=93y 2a43ln7B t1le defet ►dants claim, tI?C C;Crurt must cfl.sagrCe. (11 will dis,rtect tlx; I ingtage of t"hL t,^r.utn :^Eectton cl,iit)se l#tter illt'4i i s [7^f dniC^n. ) 7 j'enn p'ocecds to cilscuss lx.tw ltalian law allows tnandatcjry fortt,n sc1Lctitm clatt5c;s_ tt tr.lics ox7 the iirsi paragraptl at' /4tticio 4 ctf tfte 1995 lnw: "If jurisclictic,at is not catabiishcd in accordance with A ►•ticle 3, juriscliction cxists rtonetheicss if t}x; parties have acc:c;pird it hy unfitual agrecnrent and xtIch accePtnnce is evidenced in varitittl; or tiie dcfendaatt eiytet:^ bis or her appearancc wvithotit wising a lack of jurisdiction nbjcx says `l:ycnn, n1ettlas the coatttact's declaratiun ihat "tltt< law Court of Venice is ayonapetent" wa.s "Wnsisteayt wiFii t£ic wcil-re.cogniYed principlc; of Italian law that the desi;,nation of oiie `comix,t.cnt' court c;c)rt,a-titutes an at;rcement ott iis c:xctusgve jurisdiction as a matter of law."2" Tvcon again returels to thG IirtaSSeis Conventiotis Anic.le 17. To quote it witlr Tycon'` enlpha4as: "Jj'thr perrfrc^^, one or more uf whom is [tanrit:ilcd !rt u C.'orztrac'dinn,57ule, have agreed fhat a court or the courts oCa: Cuntt-acting ,Staztc arc to havc jurt.rdicr i()n to settle any dfsfrrves -tvl7ich have airisctt cir whicii may arise in ccsnm:ctioat with a particular te& relationship, thcrl Lourt or tla()-w courts .rhrxld hc,4 i ^cl^d4 atyc,l ydri.sc^rc.lfc^ra." '1hc defendatTts presctat thrc:e cascs applying this language, 71at,, CPiapova Tycott relies on a 1994 cic;c:iviUn of tile tJuitec! Civil Sccticros of tllc Supretne Cottrt of C7ssation, 07011r)va w. t,. R., ,Sr.&° T(Ie PDaintitf was a Cica7uan cztazen whO was tlic; sale5 "epreswtvtivc of an ltal' cttn exfrrApwty, the defendr,nta '17ic repre.sc'itation was canceled lxcawe d2c tepreserttvtive had nc,t, bcen makittg her sales quota. 'd'hc cantwt had a forum selection claitse: "tIke coniTxate ►it court fur any possitslc clisTute is the cot2rt of the initiating party. The 5upm7rc z;4 •`Cc^ttSbinct^ tvlotivcas Menttlrersclum" :tt 14. :a° ( hu^rrvu x fi..lf. S;r.l., C^^5., 1.7cc. 33, 1994, Nn. 10621). 43 of 78 Appx. 91 FE8-18-2009 10:04At't From: It?Gf2AYC7t:N HEAt7 F'aoe:043 R=93: 02/18/2009 wHo 10:09 FAX WO4d/078 (;'ottrt .found the €3eusGe1s (.'onvetttion "allows tlic p;irties to a certain 9ega1 rci<3tioziship tts agrcc t« grattt to a ,jdtelgc of onc of the contrac:ting States the cxcPtisivc contpctenc.e: t() settle thc; disputes tir1s191g rTt.}B?t SP1CI} rt Ialit>syship,", 1-his 4e.sb-tlt.au-lucid passage sc c:ttnapetent cnurt tiora.xy possibte df^ptttes is the cottrt ctfth.c plaiaitiffwnfers to the dc.qFgtlatcd cout't an int-iiizational value and, therc:fcyre, is titc unique criteri4.n and essential e-:^quircment for inciividtating [itc: legal irmcm to which the crrurt must helong, vvttlt t€te cottscqucncc that the latter is granted the exclaasivc competc;ncL tu settle any disltut.c arising from the re.tative agre:c.j-nent.:' 'I1tc Court thinks that supports Tyc un's c:ase by finding a"competetat" court is the exclusive one. 13ut tIic case coaTcc,^tul citizcns of "f„odtiraCtint? SttsW" to the convc:lttion, Cicrlnaa2y and Italy. 't'i7at is a key cEistitactiun finm isnquip v. 1`ycon. And the Stxpz'ente Court says ttotlxiutg of procedure vcr.-ats suiritance. Wc pro&ras tn the ncxt case su2smittel to the C:ourt. The Saneco Case 'I'yccsn iiext addresses aaiather case be€orc the same court, Sanc}co, S.A. v. T®.3ccalinc, Like (:'hr,povu, the psrtics were residcnt in natiotts patly to the Brussels Co3rvention. The plaintitf, a krcnch c,oEnparty, aupplied "a huge yu;attity of raw materials" of an unspoken nature to the defendariL, aBt itaiian conltrcFtyl. 'llic case ss;etits to lx wttat is f.amrliar finiay the tirst-year contracis class thiit American tawstudt,nts Lake: it was a battle oft€ZC foral.o°"z 1.1C baLk of invoicen Saneco sent had a forum selection clause titat, in the Suprciuc Court's words, ..c.^tablished the competence of tlic commercial court of Lliar.e6rouck, Prancc,J for any cfispitte between tlie partics coau;crnint; thv uatt;rptetation, ihe e3cecution[,a ajad the icrnnination of tllc. `lirrcru. Sd. v. 7iascrnPinar. ,ya-l. CM-;;., sv- can.. .5ctp. 27,2006, No> 20887. =^1 Sac "'the 1.#ittle af the 1=orn,s aaid the tlnit'ann Cocaltnirci;it Code," Ji° Allan d°arnswarth, Wi}fiant F. Youlst; & Carol Sanger, t untrams (6111 ed. 2001), cisspter A*,, section S, mr 194° 44 of 78 Appx. 92 FEB-18-2009 10:04Rht From: ID:CdRAYDON HE^D P'a9e:044 R=93% 02/18f2009 WE4 10:10 P13X aOd51D7H two cuntract4." • 1'osr.oline c,klectect :,ayi.n;g it never accepted the ciioicc crf tizrunt Article 17 was found to be irrLlcvaa,t bGca;asc tltc i'Urum u:lectioia clause had not been agmed to by the parties< tlttimatcly, the Suprm-ic C:ourt upheld the Frcnch courts but tan coiitplctcly aitferertt provitiicins o#'tltc 13nisscls Cxnvcrttion t.hatt are relied on by Tyc('n. "1'hc °.'sztps'emc: Court relied on Article 31 of t.1ic Convention, which deals wttJ) the proper ec)Urt -whczt goods are being ctelivcred. As delivc:ry happened in France and I3efgittni, Italy could kaot be a forum for the Law. So ttie 5uprema <`cyurt f;ailcd to enforce Article 17 in tlic caac :uzd aiiythinK xaid about that articlc was wh(tt American eaiifrts call dicta. The Genovese f a.se '['Ike tlurd <:ds<; submitted is fr ,,5p.A. r. R. before the ("aW of C7c;xeoa, Stxth Civil Ses;tYntt, It appears to be two separate actions consolidated into onu:24-" 1lte pIairttitT was ai7 Italian company; the dsfeneiant was a Swiss conip deficient. 13c1t tltc c:ast> sLzms to invtrive a caagtra4t dispute aix ►ut•r the p;akslici#v rights uf a soccer player. '1'hc contract s-aid "Swiss law a}iplies.. 'Thc comiscte»t L«urt for po5siblc disputes arising from tlzc: ccmtt~act is Ziirich; ordinary judges shaf! bc connpctcsrt." Tttc Court observes this is a translatiott 1"roan tlac Italian wurE opYrsid,irt snto F-nglssh of tanvxge in a contract written in azc trnspecified tostgtte. While Italian is an official laftgilagc of. Switzerland, most uf° the cs.antons of the nation, including 7:.arich, are ferm,n.-spcal;u3t;,;"a 't`he Court does not know wlaat xa5 the Urigilyal language of the ct)ntract qaoti;d-italiazt'.? (.'scrrn:+n? rrencl7 , the third official Swiss lant;ual;e'.'-,ind will,lidt knowing what was lost in tranalatiora: liut diltlc weight on the construction of thrit phrase in considering tlte language at issue Egctwccss E1iquip attd'l'ycon. R=at1 their can,tras.-t was writteti in English. $a' Tribunale di Gennva 1(.;em>a'i, Scz.1%l, rcb. 1 fi, 2t)07, N(w. 13fv!?102 4 f 77'$LuA3 z°` 77tc Sdutc,^mUtr'.r Ycarlaonk (Rarry Ttmu.'r ed. 141st vd. 2001) 1545. 45 of 78 Appx. 93 Ft=8-18-2009 10:04AM From: Ila: at'RtaYDQtJ HEACi Pase:045 R=93% OZ/18/2009 arY.A 19: YD PAx a046/®78 11e Circnuvesc carurt foitlod "tttL partzk's a7cant €ca "libn'it tlx: cxrn111,aettlal rLlationsltip .titci the di:;pute; arising thereunder to i,iitty thC substantive and procui111•a! taws o!° Swit7erlant{ ***. In sttIs'mary, it is not neeessary tltat (lre exclusivity resu)t:5 frait7 air express tcxtual indic:^ation." 'I"his language vvotaici aiso suppc^rt'd`ycon's ctai2n Vcnic.e is the c:xclusivt; forLrua. But reading fiart.ltc*r, mc lcartg aparty to suc1l aly excldsivc fog'um selection clause msFy i.vai.va it utider Articie 18 of flte Brussc:ls Csanvelltic)n. It retttls: "Apart tiron2 juritidit.-taon derived iiot21 other provisions i>f this C:oixvcntiean, a court c,f a C'ontmcting State befot e tvizonn a ridfcudanl enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. 'liiis rule shall ttot apply 'A,herc appearance was entered seale(y to contest the jurisdicttoai ***:' '}lia GLnove;e coatrt fibunci tluit in one uf tite cases 3acyfc^re it, the cxclusive fniun; was waived because a paaty raisui «thc;r issues in its appearance. (^a tiae Uther lKLsc, tvhere only jurisdictic>nat defenses werc raised, titi pixty presc;nrcd the cPu?icC of f'ururn. Assuma,3g thts L'.ourt is bound by Italian isroceciural law, consider that statc:mc:nt, If a party appears in a case to do anything ninre ihttu object that tiic court lacks jurisdictiu,t, it accepts that ilie cottrE h:^; jctrixiiction, The C'ourt bas exurnined the appearances fserc m.adc by Tycon, ltohisins & Myers Italia, and 11fdudler. All three appeared by answering the c:campiaint. "l'hey filed no ntotioxx i3nder Civ.it. 12 to contest jurisdiction, mercty ztotiug, in their answers the question of jurisdiction. That was one of several defenses they raised. If the Genovese decision presented is a correct styte.tnent of Italian law, titen by r.lisiug any aastte besides the que^-tion of jurisctiction befnre this Cotirt, tiie c3efendiattts liavc cLansc:ntecl to its jurisdiction. '!'hat is, i!'Itaiian law applied tr: this actiatr. The C:onnccctici:t Stapetior Court didtt't think it did in siniilar circumstances. 46 of 78 Appx. 94 FfB-18-2009 10:09AM From: IIJ:GRRYDON t-EAD Pase:045 R=93% v41 x9s LVV`J Yf.P^U LQS tU NAX aC47lM 1 he Cntra7t ctictit (:`a,sr?.g 7'he C`outt Prcviousiy described a case from the Nutsa,Cg State.zas The co, nt fihe'e relied talx>n nvo dMisivns VE't.Ge Itz^di'tn,Suprente Court svhich sccsnt particularly relevant. The t°nnnc:ct.i(::eat Sulzct-ior C'ouri az:aeived ttanslation5 and 4y)xOPscs c7t" tl7cse; waeti. As C'iv.fi. 44.1 a.llOws this C:ottrt to coxasider foreign law wherever it may hc fOeisxci, tlze Court Will cluvte the Iangttagc*, before thL. !..'C11211('CtK>Ut tri()u;tlill. 'I'he Court atteYl3rAed to SccurC cl)pieS Ul tliese dc;elsFrrm fTC>an the law I;h;'ary cat 7'hc Ohio State i)ttiversity's Mnr7tz College cif Law, ovltich Iao;sesses iizI ttairml law CnPlectloet. Librariams ihere were unsucec.ssful in locating tlzcatt ^^^cause the Iiaiiatt rel)ot•ters arc-natEaratly :. nnt ittdexed. T8t aiiy event, ttic texts would have ltcc2 ' in Italian and, as tlic Court said ix':ia)re, it does tiet speak ItZlxFui. In a 1995 case, ilie Italian Supreme C:ourt ^Vas &t id to have ruled iliat an "agceemexAt wtlich provided wiiich C.c>urt, diff'crcnt finm the tcrritorial comisc;tr~nt Cc.sut-t e.stah3ished by E1ie law, s1ia11 tx;. competent (foes not snc:a» the excf ttsive comfietetrce of ilic nrciir),aA)r couutS.»zO !u a 1994 caw, llte Italian Supeeme Court was saki{ to b.ave ruled that a coiitract "clatisC providittg which CrsRn-t sball be eottr}etostt tc9r all disputes concerning the perfcxnamacc of a contract (art, 29 Iti.Eian C'ivil Procedure ( ode.), cvcn thc3ugh it is approved in '%Titing does tzol nt4an dcolaraition of exelusive c4razpc.tenre anci docs not exclude the ordinary ctaAiipc;tinc,c, since for sucts effce:t tIiG lsartics tuust cluclare ihe niut.ual will both to eaclucia the lurisdlcttolA of the Gotnt ^.;tabiished by thu law and to exclude the casacurre»c c of thc chosen C;oiun with the ordinary 243 IM Norlh:finericu, lnr. it dllt r^ Scrrnrtna. 3.p.,4. (scpt. 9, 19941,'3uper. Ct. of Can6t. N 77390). o. CV99058059, 1999 W3., "' id. at -f 3, qs3ofjng a synopsis aflE)c ruling in Cnrk: ci3 cissarione, t]ac. 20, 1945, iso. 1297). 47 of 78 Appx. 95 FEB-18-2009 10:05fM From: ID:GRRYDON 1tE.qD Pase:047 R=93; 02/1$12009 WED 14:1p Fax; 0Aa8/C7B c:cmipet.ciri ('cgurt."217 r('}Te; E.7>431111CCtic;lll C41i11't ^I54D lCit t1h> liali}n Cmir.ts did not trt-'at Atrtict€ 17 of tIke I3russcl4 ( 'cnvcntiun "ss opcraialg to tratl5tol'tn any ctyoice «f't'nivtit irit(} uli CxcCuSivc t3ne.>,248 13otih o('tlaese cl-tscs 90agsin.+:t the arl;urxu°axts advanced by Tycon. X rt A tr4rrurtitte F1►>d,tag The Court bcIic:ve5 ille Arneri"ia law ()n Procedtire ^tpplies and addresscs that i:.sue isctaw. l3ut if it is wrnng in its bciirf, the C;out't 1yyakes twO -1EtcllrQstivc tindin^,,s. iq`irst, by defer,d"uig in tixis E-f7Ux'G Uii any gmunds other than an iznpropar fpru3n--a.e, by daitig anythnl.g in illcir tirst a}apestranct in this action ot(ar.r than filing a niation to disrniss vrtrter Civ.1t. 12(13)(3)---thc exclusive for'um t11at niay have 1M:cii af'Purclrxl tc, thexn utider t±.alian law was thu.w waived; Sea; ond, bascd t2ii the cases cited by ilic t.'vnnectic:ut cottrr, declaring a ca}znt as "cmapctcnt" does iiol under Italian l,qw niake it the excit3sivc tiyxutn for di4I}utz;s. And with that, we eirb:ar:k dDn (lle ret.unl passal;e laUSnc> to these Uliitu.i Statcs, happy with the siaratps in ctur passPorf. Said Bacon: "4Vheiz a tr:iveller rcturolrth harmc, let him nOt leave tlie wcmtr3es wliera: he hat ira.velled altogctlaer behisld hi1lY"244 What Rullcs of tIBe Road Apply? '!'kae par#ies readily ciw- to precedents from Ghio and lzederal courts. This Court has a strong preference for cojisid:.riji^ the law c^f this ii^ttiop rather than tl;at of Italy hecau.^c a chcsicL of forun.a is a prc,cidural aspect of the iaw.zsn z" id. ,al ^ f 3-! 4, qucating a synopsis s)f i}r6 n liab in Cortx^ 2e1 Id. ui 3 4, icsnw Mar,► 25,. dp c:ass"i 1994, 2ao. 2915. :,^ Fr.ancis R-301), "Of `Nve!" (1Ea3S), in 1'hc E,ssayv or Cotrnse3s. Civil and Mrsrai, nr rcaricts I3cicosa ^iai3fe . Anclco:spn ed. 19()it)1U8, I I I . f# `'o Sa c [)in.se^! 1'^ t ►^^ S;^ 1. v. Circ t^crp,aN l^rrsinc^s f.'redit PI, /_l C` (?tiov. S, ^t308}, 4$3300. !, at &7 S.JD.]^.Y. No. 07 C'iv. 9580,2008 wl.. 48 of 78 Appx. 96 FEB-18-aOO9 10: 05R"! From: ZD: GRqYD0N hEAD Pase: 048 R=93 ^ 02J1$t2409 YiED 10:11 FAX 1^^39,D^B A 14oe•rrtta Selection I>s l't-tacc(Jr.,r•ul •) }ts: Itali.`d)I law cited is oniy applicable i(' it represents substance and not procx;durc. The Supromlc: C:uurt of tltc United States ha.s not tiaid in a c)t^!Is, unmistakable form as to tirrhetlser forum sclc;l:tiott cltluscs :lre procerll:rai. But the Suprenies laavc come Very CIoSe 10 such a statement. 'I'wc-nty yeat:c at;ta they wrote tlli:;: "We hiiDci thAf federal law * A * t;tlvGrt7s the District Cncart°s d4'e:.i4icfn whether to give ct'fect to the tr,rtiei3' lbruan selection cI:au.sc3 and transter this cas fanothcr DistrpetJ."2sr By applying ),cc#era1 rather than state faw in tllc actiott--^a diversity ease tactwa:x:n Alabaitta asui New Yotk u3mpantcs..: -the C.`ntlrt appt;arcc1 to iitatT farum selectiun clauses prt3c:cdtard) and left it fci the lowcr eourts to figltre out Wl3ttt tl7c;y were UP to, (Thzxs prnv1nig right gleast Achegon wheit !te clefitaect tttat lx)dy as'`tire oracle which, after consuEtfltg the olnetts, gives an answct rr,quirin8, several ctua(les of further ciuciclats°on: As2) t hroe montlis after t.lye Supreme Court ruled, the Nintla Circait surveyed the field in a tlisputc involvittg atxsths;r Italian cotnpany active in America, Guu;i.25-1 It i'nurtd the `rhu-d and Sixt6 C`.ircuiui treated €orltttx selection clauses as s11hsta11tiwc,2-" but cle Second, Fourth, and F1eventh treated thcnt as pr«wciur.tl.`55 T)ie Nltith Circuit dec;idcd tt) tt't:i3t them as }rnvicec4ural a.5 wc1l."sr, And dicta in afS:',;ezitlt Circuit opinion s^tatvj that y9M , z57 ;ts' Meivrtrt !'h%, Lnr u. Kfc:,jh Corp. (IqSE#), A$7 U.S. 22, 32, 108 S.Ci. 2239, 101 .L.Ld.2sI 22 (applyin$ law on aran4ferratlb mias ftm onc siistrict s(turt to anolhcr in the cotttcxt of Forutn sc)ccf itin cl3uses). Dc^tt Achcson, ,Skrrtc facs I rnrn I.ifi> qf Meh 1 llrrua hnoa6t2 (1961) 142. MrYnc.^rlt-Parrnw,lnn. Y. Ciue:ri rfntericrx, lns:. (C:..A.r}, 8988), 85t3 F.2J 509. fQ. ot 512, citing Grlvrcd 1:»f;. C,'rtrqx v. p9lrrtin Mariertu Alurniata, lnc. (C.A.3, 1986), 783 T',2$ 352, 356-57 atxf Snidar v. J.Qtua &ur An Tr°crr/tM- Lo.• inc. ((:.A.G, 1988), 838 F.2d 1215 (sast•itC ttnly --tead at 1989 t4'I, 9178), 1e1, at 5 i 2»513, citin$ dCn,•J Kfsr.7t lsetricring E:®. Y. New York r_'nztvuteietn C.`ir. !.)ev. {'.'Urp. (C.A. 65e1; L.ncete x lLietstelir 1484), $.38 F.2ci 656, (C, A.2, 1986). $02 f;4d 49, 56; L`ertse N. /nruacfatN 84i1c4y S)s. nf.lni., 1:.2d 718; Inc. (C,A ?, 1932), 693 /3r}:uArt Eloc. Co. l.. CatyeAf FrcadarBclrgbtn-g (C;.A.4, 1985), 7fi2 F.2d 1192, 1196-97;.attdSteznxtr! f)rr,, 1m;. u, Ric.(.Jr Corp. (C:.A.I1. 1988), 810 F ud 1066, 1008. Sw aLw JuraE.s Y. Werl$reche (C:.A2, 1990), 901 F.2d 17+ 19 ("Questic74zs ctif vcn(ce and the cnrprcctncnt of forum $elcctioat i[suses are csscntiatiy pr=dura), rathttY• ttlnn svUstrtntivc in taatttlt") it81s) Iniesrnn!/. SeafhvUrc.S^>arernt.v, late°. v: ifrupltc Appx. 97 FES-i8-2009 10:05M firom: ID:GRAYDON i-EPD Page:049 R=93x 02/18/2009 wEt? 1Os11 FA2i QjO5Q/078 l!116,Y C)hio I,aNw, z1tC ptttct;dural l.iw of a 1ot-uitl applic,s.'se "ln clt,c}ico-cf-faw situations, thu Isrocuittt•al laws of thc forurn state *** are generally applie.d,"saiti tl3c Ninth i)istrict .^SR '1.hc Uttit? Strprcmc Cour•t tc:Ils us a f.orcttn sclu;tiou clausc; is rsrvicecltlrat ztnd ncxt 5ubstzntive.'°r4: t3huo Luw on Foa'ttttt thaestanns of tvhGlt catErt is proper to ficar a clispUfC is t7 Ynattcr ol' the proccc#ur,l 1,1w. As stat:ed hefore, a e;.lac>ico ot'law provisi procedure. If the Court t2Yu,st fofDow ItaliaiZ procWitre, then why is this C'ourt not ubligated to follciw tiie whole cost of tiielxt`7 C)tlt minur Lxaurtplcof'tiow inapracticrsl that would be wiii sttffacc. 'l'lus Court requit-es bricfs be tlcii oti letter-si:r,ed paper (R Y in. k;. I I iu.).261 The It;a[iaris are Uhtc to use A4 (210niin x 2971nizi) or some other nietrici•r.ctl sir.c in their hriLfs.262 Should the Court follow tilc italiata rules on the si7e ofhricYq bGCausc Italian law has tsecn chosen? 11cre is a distinction hctwccn prr7cuiutr; atld stab5tanc<:. T)te Court tvill only adopt, Italian law as to 4ubstaitce and not ifis rules on furun, selectitm----nor its fortya of bric.Cs. Tyc(>rt has not shown Italy considers forlmi selCctiotl clauses a matter of substance t'nthCr iZtati prorc:dure. ')hc Court prestimcs Italian lavv is exactly the sanie m in tlyis stRte aat(% will cona f,lcte their picturc of ltalizq law vv filling tbe etupty sliaccs vvith Ohio taw. Ohio cclt,5it3ers forttm.qett;ctinn intc:tpret:aticyn to be a rnttttcr nf procedttit ratl7cr tbata substance. The ('.ntut dctcnnines the forum se}ectitsn langu;ttV in the taonu7ct: should be z;tan..idered uiider tlte law of tlw forum, Ohio, rathcr than that of the- chtsicc-nf faw provision, Italy. Ohio law will Ix, applicti to the forun) selcctiora clause. t;t I%r'Nszs v, ,Sa!/israit (1936), 130 0hio S[, 486.5 f).:0, 139,200 N.E. 639, peraraph !'c3ur of the nyl fa6t s. I.tm.son v. f'dlva>.-Trc1 f.'ra. ► (1991), $I Ohio Alap.3ci 1. d, f^1E1 bt.l.:.2d 925, ciiiq6 Rrrrile v. L:nit^tasJry vf Yir^;raiu 0 996'}, 30 UbitY Aph.,id 190, 199, 30 OBR 333, 507 N.L•:2 Appx. 98 FEB-18-2009 10: SSAhi From: ID: faRAYF70N HEfaD Pa ge : 050 R=93 : 02/1$f2®09 wsD 10:1L HAX (40511076 A Funiiy 7`hitig 1-lappened on tlae Way to the.Fortalm ... Having found tj#aio law is cantruuitTg oti procedural issues such sta Tc>rtt»z selection c3attses, the C:oerrt exittlitYLs the c;antrac:t, vvhic>h ::tates. "T11e law Courx o1' Ve>JZce vvi[l be coarapet.ent for any chspute."`"' In tri.yplyint; that l:uigttage, itse C'aurt has !?ccsa tzrt;ccl to consider principte5 oi`cnmity. . . . C.'r^miPy `!'ortughl `" C:oc»ity'- in the legal sense, is taci(l9er a matter of zibsolute ohligation, 017 the one h of mere courtesy and gc,aci will, ttpvu the otlier. But it is the recognition wllicia Utic natiat) allows within its terriWry to t11C legislative, exccuttvcQ or judicial acis of another nation, having due z-cgai•d l7oili t:o zntcrnatioi7af duty aitd convenieiace, and to the rights <)i' its 4nvn t itizens, or of other persons who are under the prciteceion of its Irtws."244 That cotncs fi-aam the 'ancicilt"2e5 cssse of Ifildon v. Caa.ryal, to sVhich tllc t:UUrt ha.s tx c-,n refeMd. 1-filcon is a remarkable case, An 1895 decision, it sprawls aerv,%s one-htmdred twenty-two pages of the LlnitNt! L4tcrPis Reports. 'l'htnugh thc,se pnk;ccs, Mr. Justice Gray conducts readers on a forced tiaarch though a taJur of ancient cas,^-s in wmiuativs: rctx)rters whose ci#ttian^: are incornprc:hensibSe withnvt 13feher's266 ;ts one's Bac;dekt,x.267 `)'bet'e arC c:a;St>s involving Italy,264 Prd2tce,'r;¢ Jailiai(:.Z,270 t"•a[cutta,27, To(9agiS,272 D'ld Carertoda,27-3 atnon.g others, befoze the decisi®n expl4res the c:a,nity rtttt^s oi' lerance, 13ell;iunl, 24' ",4bcstcy Itt;reemept` aitaci7rd as Exbibit A tta thc 7lti,-d Amended i`.ctsnplaint. '" Jfiltiw v G`uync ( 1895), 159 U.S, 133, 183-1E54, 16 SL:t. 134, 40 1..3^:zi 95. See also M.E. Jerac,,s, Inc. v. ilrnt C'nanmxnicalirms urtd,Sofitwuc. 1..1ct., 2d UW, lan. E9576, 2003-091io-20$4, 2003 WL 049786, V (clnBtting wt1aDr d, ¢fSttition on uimity irs respccting titat tcgal ytrococdittgs iRvalving the parties wcrc aire:sdy pettdittg in Appx. 99 FE8-18-2009 10:06RM From: ID.G2AYpON FIEfRt) Page:051 Eit=93% 02/1$/2609 w3:D I0:11 Pia2t 0052/D76 Holland, Uenm:ark, tltic Uerie:tzn 1=m:pirc, Sta•itrerl;uid, l;tissia, Poland, 1ZUttiania, Aulgaria, Attsitia, Monaco, Sp,iii7, Pciatt^ga1, C.ircact,E6y-pt, C:ubct, "Hayti," Mexico, i'crit, ariti A.rgentirta."la The principles of zhosc 1 initl Sartiinia,: -which wcrc u,litul to i'c>rm ltalv, then anty t.wcrtty'-c;a:-s old-are also e,;pJurcxi 21s Even an 1$20 decree of Pope i'hts VII shows u0s amongst tbc autliuriti:`^(' (Appropriately ior this r•ase, that laT'ticuIar Bishop of 17onle was eIected by thc College of Cardinals wlyile it ,at iti Venice.' 77) 3ut wttat relevance all this uEih ofex,taiity has to t.bi5 case is tinclear. One of Our Court.ti of Appeals dct'tncd "comity" ati "coarte-sy, complacence, reqkct, a willint;rtr.as to grant aprivilegc, not as a trtatter or right but oirt of defcrctice and good will +1 [ancl) a principle in aLcortitxtace: with wlliLh the cottris in oite st:tic orjuri:tdiCtion wiii bive riyct:t to the laws wid jttdicial decisions of another, nol as a niaitc:r of obligation but out of dc:f4erxce atid respcct "ztx Comity i:t "a m„ittcr of c:ourtesy rather than of right."274 •ilse .Se:cond District ca1IS it "tiiscrc:tion[ary]°°....not rnandatory.:^° The Ccatrt is utlccxu:i.ta wltat conaitY ttm; to do witti ttts: present case, The Court is uttawarc of judic;ial proceedings relating to these ivsttes wliich Lirc pending in asav other diyrum. L.ikLw;Sv, tlxe C:oui•t is not being asked to enforcc or acc t;pt anothcr tribunal's orders. °rhe (.'uurt has aiready stated it will apply ihe subsclazntivc laws of Italy, so it is abiding by principles afiUmit}• in one senie. 13nt zn rfa-telllM v. 2' Appx. 100 FE8-18-2009 10:05AM From: ID:GRAYDON HEAD Page:052 R-93x 82l18t2409 Ws® 14ti2 Fax ad53i078 in tlis rtlclz-C usual use of tlto word, i.a:. meaning a rc,spcx;t fcrr other c>cltrrts' rnlings, c,onlity is not acleHant. A Choice as, f Forum Ix 1're.curnplive1v YtlJTd Clawscs clioosing a l:vram %krcre hictoricalty found hy t3ic caurts Co bc "Vnid"zs^ hi.c:auw they "utistu3" coua'ts Of thcir jurisdiction:''2 Fnr tllis re;tsolr courts were alsv lcfn4 a lmstiDc to arbitration csattsd:s.'H; Whilc nearly all states now accept thenl, a few flava; beld fit.ct and continue to rejcct f0ru177 selection clait.5es,244 C)hio has a statute ad®pting ttic Unifiyt'n; Model Choice of I-ortym Act cvh}ch allows vtlr courts to cr;i'orz:u ^t choice raf foritm.285 °l`hc tJnited States Supren7e Court attaw fitgds fortttzt sc*.lectiots c3a^.bes to hs; prima facie valid unles..^ a iaariy Wnshow why they ,shotiid ntst bc enfores;d.z" So does the Ohio 5ufronze Co3lrt.xsr lic7rrrart v. F,artertr 13fcfq. ci Lrivn rl.r.sn. 0 903), 174 N.Y. (12 R^xTi:ll) 83, 86, settld t3tan 1f01=1 selcction clausesi arc voiei"). 66 N.E. 027 ("ntstliing is fxticr "r' l:.g. C:arban 13luc k L•'x,nc+r1, 1tiC, ts, Y'he ,S. s A90tta-rzvca ([:./t„5, 1959), 254 F.3d 297. Scc Au) .lns. N,rte v. 11errt16J10n A4rrt. Co. (1856), 72 Mass, (6 Gray) 174, 185, cases collected in Anitoaatian, Vnltcfity of Cortiractuxl Provision 4,imiling !'lgcc cw CoUr[ ict Which Actioti May fic 13rtlitgbt (1984), 31 A.f,.R. 4th 404 (supetsrxiirrg 19S 7 8nncatation ofsa,nc tiilc at 56 A.LR.2d 3001; and Pnforttxrtian Ixunlnb C nM, v. Jtukni, 151 Uhia Aly1.3d 546, Z00.3-Obio-56b, 78,4 ?•t:F_?xl 1192, $30, citing l^ictliel E. tiolitltiits:, i-tmam SeloGlic,n Clamc,s auad Qtc 1*rlvalizatstsn of iaroCcdlnrs (1992). 25 i':uraioll Int1.I 1. 51, 53-54. 28i Seo hliFs:thashi A401vrx Gotp. v. SuderT.7»}:.xtcal-l'tjarmulh, Ilrc. L.13rI2d 444, fn. 14, citing (I48-5), 47S U.S. 614, 626, 10.5 S.t:i. 333Cy, 87 d5ettn Winer RLa•ar►Jds, Jnc 1$5, n.6, a)d v. 13}!rd(I9&51 470 U.S. 2E9-222, 105 S.O. 1241, 84 L.Ed.2d &itrx& v. Atherta-Cxdver C.x (1974), 417 U.S. 506, S I Q, 94 S.CI. 3449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270, rn. 4. :t"See 4a'y Rnrn, lnicrnelinnnl C.ivi! Litigatiern in United States GiurLs: C.sanntern:uy and h2atcriails (1996) ?7& (citing cascs Ei^om Alabam:e, lelafio, M(xztnna, ancf '1'cxaa rejeef ing fornni sclix:ticn Llaires}. 2es R.C. 2307.39. Al:S flrcmcn i,. 7a1Wrl Uff shntr Co (1972), 407 U,S. 1, 17-1$, 92 ;i.t;1. 1907, 32 L.]:d.2d 513. t:t` C'rxp. v 1Pefitr!-lklarit I4a9asc41 Xiscn Kcriarhu f.tc1 (F`ch. 4, 2009), 9th (;ir. No. 416-56831. - r.3d -; 20v) R' case ►..2.51949 (••3 niaritinic ►hnut a tr.ain wteck" wheir caxair:,ct ta ship gVods froni C9Yidta l:ad forum-SCloctioit ctan.sr c6asmifal;'i'ukyo but train caraying ttieni fs= Long I3eacts, Cudi!`orni:s, dea"aited in 'k`yronet ()l;fnliumn, and contract with rxilro,ad chase: (JEraal%t, Nabrtskai, ax f Appx. 101 FEB-18-2009 10.0&q°1 Froan: ID:GRAYBf3h( t-EA[? Pase:053 R=93% 4211912009 WED 10:12 8AX Z454lD76 For exanjplc, the C ntirL4 will nnx apply the lavrs c)t' ;t dorf ign st,-Ittc which i5 "an uncivilizui uiurztry.*"M (13ut thsi tc:rta is ;utat7Lthing whic;h ttttast be proven and cntrrts at•c "InattY t{} and will nut taeliLVe it, a.bsend such a showirtg "'") A party may ttot "vex" nor "Itarass" Rvr hi., oisponer7t with an inconvenient fbrum.z^`o Where tl)C cvt]tracl is nbtatined by inYianicl;ttion, a forum selection c:latssc; will nc>t {ac: s., ^nfUrced,29t 1'Ii4 wrotia-faittt; inust relatc tu thc farun3 sclet.'tiolicl,ittyt; and not nierely the entirc wntract.'`n Atzd the tOrtltn s<.lccted iittisi lta-ve a reasonable csinncctitfrg to the parties a9' 'i^e -Sw)nd (;ircuit fias disti Iled (lFC aa.§ey istt c;hoicc of fqrunt. Wa.ti t:he clausti; cOtnmttnicated.a Is it alauxdatory or Slcrmissive? Are the clrtil}]s btx ►u^;ht su^+,jec:t to the clttuie? Would etiforccment be unrcasunabfe nr unjust:?294 ACS I"OP7!(&ISG'!e>ction C:Iuusc1 ix YraXid As 1'yc;on is h=dqusziereci in thL %mc Movincc as Venice, tltc site ofthe cvttrt Tycon sccks to titicate in, it is a reasonable choice c.af fortttn. it may !ic ina.onvenicIrt tct I nquipy ^,tit ii is izct m()rc itweatavenicttt than an Anacrican cout't would be to tl3c Italutn defendt•uY1s, if a wildly unlikely atxi z:.,,cr I-1o1ntcs, J., it1,SJrrt<>r v. MCxtefan Nurl. !& C. (1904). Tr^nurrFr v- Urritul Frtaif 19r4 U.S. 120, 129, ;?q S.0, 5$1, 48 f..'rraihy G`ex (1909), 213 U.S. 347, 35S<35G, 29 S;^i. 511, 53 1.,.F.,d. 825;tne! (t912), 222 Y1.S, 473, 478, 32:i-Ci: 132, 56 L.Fd. 274, C 9^OA ^r^Gv`^ `'"' }Y'alearr v. 41u95ira>'r Anu•rawrr Oil E~a. Arabia). (1956), 233 1".2tl 541, 545 (atitomobile accir3ent in ihe Kirigdt)nt of Sa:x3i ``Jtl Gtrlf C3i! Co. v. t,ilbrrt (1947),330 U.S. 501, 509, G7 S.C't. 839,91 I_I ti. 1055. U. FfCiclrrca- Co»anrtrnifittdiwns Inc; N, H.R.H. 11'rirfce 13arrr(ar fil-!•`rrr.cat (C.1,.7, arguod forutn sr:lcctfon cJsaie wax invatid lsccausc: dcfcncSant, a mcrnba r c>ftt>e ynt,di1988), royal 9S9 Fawily, P.2tt obca1302, 1310 (plaintiff' (^^ itatimidauan by ,u^esting tirosv who crossed ltir ►ncd 4 but coicn invalielated the ciaosa on otiler gronnds). ►r and }l;s facnily woFiid be exscutcd in the pablic ;,yUat.c i^t^ah 2"1 Roh1 v. }lrrulce, 4t3t 1)ist. 1Vp. 08CA tG, 2001-C)ltio-150, 2009 WL 104632, 121, cititig 1°inrsnvrnl.S++t:Y:, fta (Nov. 9, 2000), Rt31 t.)ist. No. 7724 $, 2000 WL 1 G7945C:. at *2. Sett aJ.u1Fr,UrShtxcvrra Ems. i; 7vrtintd lnc. (Feb. 6, 2009), Ii. i3:T'ez_ 1Jn. 4;08-CV-74, Cliitxey v. C:xic,mt .'ierwf-T 200I WI. 30.5530, at 12. zA Cf. .Seker,c r v. ,4rbuay h(1 M), 31 Ottio S1.3d 24, 25, 31 UliK 75. 508 N[.t;.2d 941and itzgatrrttent of Gon flicts, scction 187 (citoicc of Iaw r:la.use calfctrccabIs iFtltcrc is rcasnla<7blc cannectic>n betwe;LU tite pirtics and tl9a l.tw c.hnsen. Sec also Choup F.xrnRr {.`o„ Inc, v. fiodrfcnn; l,.L.C'., t7hio Sttpreme Court Slip C}pinion ?`Io. 20Gti-Uhia-6323, 2009 WL 57-14374 (t'fwut Hclwtiotl ciatresc: carn;Rt cotgf^rjtiri.'etlictton ttpon a cotnt ir•td qtfllrwise lac:kx a conltcction to t6e pariic$ >,ndaaa rlie sttbject matter of slleir ctisputc:). 3>hiddip,e v, Auddo .ic.fixc, f,rra! Eioltrliertar (C.'.A.2, 2007), 494 >.3ci 378, 383-3134, 83 t1-ti.ta.tZ. 1489, citing (C.A.2, 2006), 462 F:3d 95. 103; U./f. Rfair X. E:o. v, Joha Jirnatirri & .Sotrs if'er&, & ,Sjsirtrs, S.A. u. .11th.ik.i Inrlstrrtes rfi /)ta L, fnc. (C.A.2, 1974), 22 t'.3d 5 1, 53; Rrlhy v. c:oJ7wrCltiUn orfLlfJ,yd:s r ^'^'i^ata Uf.r.ahr,re C:u. (t~.,A.2, 1 S9:i), 9g(a F.2d 1353, 1568-736 ;; d4.;S tp-<:mrn (1972), 407 U.S. 1, 17- I8, 92 S.C:t, 1907, 32 p..k:d.2d 513; and nf ritn.. l,tc. (G.A 2, 1982), 683 F.MtI 719.721. tien.rc u. lntrrxta.te 73uuerr Sj:r: 54 of 78 Appx. 102 FEB-18-2009 10:06A1°1 From: ID:GRAYDON HEAD Pa9e:054 R=93: vGr x®e avus sa.cu ty: iL &8]L 21455/078 ancs^nvenicn# lorutn•- sav, tbc IfiKh Court of tlic Marstlatl Is1ands2l)5^.,had Ik4ri ctat^sc;za, tl3c fcarijzn scPt^:ti®ti c^.litus^: would f'ail. 1^'eatice does not t3ppear tr, have been clzos4n ta vcx, [t`u^ays. or np^,res^. Nor are there aayy othcr etai€ig;ating f<°tctors saLit -;as intinaitlativn atleged. 1'Itcrr are tt« rCasan4 wlxi:~ti wou€d_jtaStify striking the claix5e: '1'his clataxe is vdalid. Btat is it a mandatory cl^tusc. rcclaai:rtng the case to p3Y31'i`.Cd fIl ItiAly7 whad /.)0e.r crn 1;zclua•r,le 1°c1t•unt ,Selectivil C.$c'lrra•e I.aok / ike? t'o duliate the terrt7s: "Mund.7tory forutn gc:lec;tictn ctnuscs `COntaiin cleaar l an^u:^e shoWing tikat.jurisdiction iS Ippn,priatc only in t)tc destgzaated fortlm' *t-*. Ica cr,tztr^yt, ^Grtttissiv^ tiyatatn SLlectgt,n clattses aUtdorixe jur7sdicticsn in a design 13ut while they may no tottgcr be uniN'er^^l[y rcjccted, cnurt.ti a^ "rcluctarrt" ta find li^ruttt se€ection ctauscs exclusi^,c he Clear, tu3equivocal4 uiad ctsntain Iangttrtgc; tat'exclusivity."'" 'I7aus asze manual gor llte drai'ting o3' cctntrae:ts advist~5 attomeys to "(b Je very explicit as to whcther any fnruni scluct7csn clausc is °^clmsive or t7c'n exc€utiive" for "if a fontnt is itot specified as the ottly oite, the ;,electiott will lxa ire3te,.l as noneSelusive.,,299 'A ';ee Artiale VI, }lt scction i of the Coietituttcm of t(ye Repiablic o! the Marshafl ]slandti, uwailatbtc oFa litac at ^tp l/^vw'a.paclii.or^/tulsl,c^i tcanscal act/wtYni363i (1,tsg <,cccsstx} reb. ! 2. 2tHKJ). Eacel/, Irrt:. v. Sre+rlink l3urlcr 4 ^t46'4htrtdiCaP, dne; Grt>za1r JnPr.rnrrtl (C_tt.14}, 1997), 106 F.3d 318, 323, quoting rar (1994), 20 Katt.?tpp.2d 261, 886 P.2t# 9(kt. 77wmfssort u! uundes, Bc'rn; intwsLitiottaf Civil f.itigation at 454. Sec :Hlso.Sasin v, C'.SX C'ur7r. (S.)7.N.Y: 19$7), 657 ^.StrpP. 12tU, 1215 (°fonsrn sek:claon ctctuxcs wiii be rcad as (intating. vantac to a singlo dititricl catt3y tvttcre the fattgeaxge of the clausc c^dicif.ty araand3teS such CxciuxSre venue"). 1'r:lr'cvn V`tentrPrr}, I.,f C r? ,4aiuryl S.I+1L FluricJrr, fiic. t. t,itrrmudt; (July 78, 2004), S,L).173. No. 03-62119, 2004 WL 3142550, citing U. (C.A.11, 1985), 700 17.2d 1?,31, 1231-1232 ttttd C:irro Napcxg-Llaaud l:on/fdinCr Lure, t;,arhH (Apr, Hartford /ru. Co. ,7fxhe: ,Saenhti7xl P. 28,2003), S.D.Ffx. N. 02-22 t5d>CIV, 2003 WT, 21713994 at "6. Robert A. F'eldn>asr :rnd Rayrraond T. 14iutaaacr, 15rdiing L"tiecfive Coutraclti; A Practitioner`s Guide (?cf ui. 1999) section 5.1 0jA)(51 it page 5.1 c3,q. f(2tJtk9 :tupp. j. Ct: i7.bel. hfu. C.A. tl7-619, ... j'.Su^2cl .. a Nilartar 737cshtn KuGrmhrkf 4ishc4 x U:n' 259724, ulsvrr (Fch, 3, 2©^q^ cotaerarlictet? 2009 WL at 6(perntissive ta^tFtrrs of Fcutuat sslcctivn clsutic c^tt be by Canir;tct clamw w;tivinb Alcctions to vein:e). 55 of 78 Appx. 103 FEB-18-c-009 10:07AM F•rom: ID:GRAYt?CN }EAD Page•055 R=93y 02e13B2009 WED 10s 13 BAE 2Q58lQ78 '111c p.:tl'tyes IlttvC art;ucd ()vcr tivltnt aplyears in bc tlr e icadital; Ohio ruling cirt tltis topic, tq UIC llrrfclftt^ky v. C;'Incrt;lr ZI.K, ^In unpublislicei Ni,tih District clccisiotl.'t'0 Ttze lttrit?uat ►c SttlU the P81't1Cs "itTcvot;iib(Y and tttiCL?IMiitiOililli'y SttI3tZlit[C0d! lZf [ItC 17ot7-C1icltlSivl'. jtlrisy(iC:tiCII of t[t►y New Ynrk Sttite ecsui•t or Federal cOtut af.Y{t;c Utldtotf States of elnlLi•tca sittiilg in Naw York City 4, * * ,5+;ol 7'I1e Nintlz I:)'istrict ftittnci "Ohio casc law on this s-ttbicct is 4pallsc," The retev;.ini American J.ars, Rqwrts atznc>tatioAi'102 finds only twtt other cases otx this isstte c{ecided under Ohio lit.w^^-ttnd vf1C {3fth0sC is iPf91Y1 NQi'th Carolitift.3R3 Most (Sf the dCc°isio7ls CttGd to t}Y( Nt1Ith Di3ti'iCi WCt'C frot7] the Federal courts-304 p'llls is itl:i(1 the sIttIftt9An [41 the prCSe13t CitsC.) Ttf-' N11Sfll DISti•ict lacid thc forum :^etectcd, New York City, was not exclti.sivc and the rasc: before it was properly brought in C?hio.305 'i'Ix 1~`Cdt:ral caac:s the Ninth District cited wCn: cut-and-pasted into the PlaintitT's briel:306 Cases uAlere foi23n1 selection clauses were up1leld have much morC explicit language t{yAn thc one in the Enquip=!'yeon wntr F`7 ill,; fioJz3fnE;z, l.»c. s? C'ttr^ „e-v 111C, lrrc., 9th T3ist. No. 22326, 2005-0hio-127I, 2005 Yvt, 662921. ^11 Id• ¶4. C:f flnrtvc Appx. 104 F'EB-18-2009 10:07RM From: ID:GRA1'DON HEAD Pase:056 R=93: 02f1812009 Weo 10,13 PAX 20571078 ^"Placc c ►I' i tsri ;stictictu for :i11 dis^utc^fi arisitzg `stt connection wit3t thc cc3titract shall he at the principal place ciCbusiitess of tncs supplior.'0u7 ^``(7 lItcc pfrriics hcretc> irrc>vocat>(y acYd unconditionally submit fifr all putposes of. 7m1 it^ coszrlmticsu t4°itli this AgreerneEit to tht: exclusivc,jurisdictiun of II7c Englislt Cc)urts,"309 ^"JAJ11 litit;atioa7 *** will bc prupc.r only in the llnitcd States 17istriet Court, 1ac,rtlzirta Di.strit:t of Guorgia, Atlatita Division, or tlze Superior C:ourt of Fuiton C"r3unty, Georgia *^# ^s3tT^J '71hc parties t;lect thc,}urisciictiott oi'thc wnipetctit (:cnuts of Satj Pautcs, i3ia:cil, waiving any other jurisdiction that tnay corrc:Sgoaxi to tlicm by rea,5cDf1 pi' their present or Cuttare l)CtIlliGilt;."1 t(t m"[lr]xeltwive jurisdictiott **^rt:5idcs in the ccrrarts oftlic Commonwealth t7PVirginia."3tt 0 "JAIll disptttes atid Anattcrs whst.^ctieverarising c,rdcr, in connection with or incident to this [c:]otitract slaall bc: lit.ig;ated ** " in t.hc St^^tc u!'FlUrida."11' 0 "For atly ccat,troversy * * * the C,czttrt of Florencse[, ItalyJ has snle jurisdiciiota.':313 30 CscOn'ra/ b..:lectr1c Co. v. (;. .4femt)Apmp. {.infGFd Qt Co. (C.A.d, 1994129 F.3ci t[K?3, 1097. "I < Appx. 105 FEB-18-2009 10:07Ah1 Frorn: ID:CaRR1'Dt7N EEAD F'age:057 R=93% 02/1812009 WSTr IOt18 PAS ®0581078 0 "'(A jtt titigatio^n rBtust lx1 L(}nzlnenceci in tlie fcdoral i#istric:t c:c,urt for the Eastern Districf of lVtiihipn or the Michigan Circuit C:ourt ffir the County of E)ak?a,ad.'°;`a ^"[lijna ciisixi►te stiatl he brotrght ilt thc New York -Suprcmc Court, Onondaga C;uunty."s 0 ",TIheS'CCtllL c9f a49y l3w5`Llit witl hc t(1e( 'ounty,ut,M(>ntgo[nery, c 'i`!zc langtrtgc at issue wtlcn the IJnitcd Siate:.l Suprenac Court fourid fcrrt)m sciection cfausi-s prestinct.pttvcfy valid was Ciiua4lv explicit: "Any disisutc arising nitstit tie treated befoi•e the London Cc')i.trt of .lils9i(3e.`:3F7 7'he Clash of C.'ivrlia» and (;:ommon Lciw 7ratladions" °Eix: Ccstart sttarnclessly borrows this section's title from the l:astc:tn 17i^-trict of Louisiana, whic:h had to consider tlic laws of Costa Rica and otl-ar>r ztaticns lsascd on civil law in the cantcxt of'a f3ruDn »on coarve»ieres argumelltes,s Thc decision gives sorne iaasight as to why '!'ycon Iuts so vigor+attsl}• insisicd this case belongs in Italy. A civil law rcgixne "°pl:tcus a ti^eiy hig1T preznium an cortaittty and predictability in general ;:ci pnrtic:ui4°arDv as to adjudicatory jurisddcticrn. Further, the civilian tradition unly grudgingly actnaits a role Cot }tsdiLia! ciisxetion, if it adn3its alay such rcate at all. F3oth arc rcas°uns tiot to givc a court vested with juzisdiction discretiotmry power to decline to e;ccrcise that jurisdiction, a€rd they help to explain whv the ffanrm non cvtavc in the 13ru.ssets Convt*,itiozL "1'hus, to the civiiiaay tnind, it is untllink,abte th;tt a court vcstei witb Jurifidiction could, in its own discretiort, decline to exercise that jurisdie4lon for rrason,q of sztet-C '^ ^d^AYes t! I3uvUar ss Cavr! F zprF+.ss lnr .(C:A.(rq 1991), 9x9 I.Zd 1131,1133, ^^s Rrrinfur^rt Ccrje, Inc, v. lskfeccl, I,.A L. (C.A.8, 2(H33}, 34 0 F.3d 544,546. 116 Prztls, 1ru. t,. f'nyxnarrre, ltu'. (May 19,2D05),,i+t.b.f•^a.'4c. 8.05-CY-19G44271:A], 3006 W1. 3;i32titlg. 41. "" At1'S Ilrrrnear a^ ZapsNa Off-shvrc C_c. (197-7), 407 U.S. 1, 3, 92 s.C`t. 1407, 32 [,.U3:3ct 513. More cLqes whore tmtguaLtc was hcid to be excltasive atiay be 1'otaani in l'rrlaer I.apjvss, Ltd v. Pfr.,,rEuch Uaschimxr, 6ntb11(G,t1.7, 1992). 972 F.2Q 753, 756. 'icc sfso the extetisiw: eerliectitrn of casas on every aslx;t caf this ctuestion in 14D Charlc: Alan t4riglit, Arlfau R. Miller & i'_elward Ii. Cooper, Fcda:rnt Practice & Yrrmcdure (2007), ti^^,yLion 303.1 at ip-134. 9P1t C°ranul4v ebfthsina- v Dow C'hcmievl Co. (L.D:U. 21)47), 219 }r,Sups.?ci 719. 58 of 78 Appx. 106 FEB-18-2009 10:08A! From: I®:G2AYDO+1 FEAD Pase:058 R=93% 02/18/2009 WED 10c14 PAdi a059/078 cc^nvcnac r^c ^, i:n tltc prvt c.ss sacrificittg cetta[nty as to ihe fortrffa ^° ** and predictability of rc.$ult '1'iyc civilian approach * "I cttn tiuEzsiazytitjlly rcducc: the tifne and ccsst ,nf Iitigation by (brec[otiirt}; lcngttzy and expensive Gc3iltasi:r over tvlacre a t:€asc e.^si11 he heard, cven after the =zppropriatettess of a particu{:ariuli:sciictiott ftzts tsc ^;;n est.al^Iishcd.,'t:`' TYCotl has CxprC.MCd iL'i unhap}attllC^s with Enquip and the Naidels first. I.ar•itii;isig suit ir, f-lvrida and then in CJhio.37" Bat thc F^z,tLrn District put it t}xis uny; "l;isrlan-,.s,i}vpping is sanctioned by our judicial system. It is as Anycric7rt as the Coa'stittttictn, percat•iptory cha}1eztges to aijrors, and otar dual -^ystt;nls ofsta.te and federal ccroztsts 4 4 " . "7'he exist.etsce systcnt, sec l:ing to serve his cfiettfs intcrests, w setect the fortun that he ccinsidcrs most receptive to his cause. The rrnative of the sizidtar itt making tttis citoice is ordinarily cyr no mot3xcnt: a couat ztlay ic st:lcc:te gencrous, the rules of law applied are iy>orc favonablcr or the judge tivlau presides in that fnnina is tht>uOt nictre likely to rule in the litigazit's favor * * ». `:Thus, despitc dctu:selant5•" iarsinttation that plaintift' effort to sccuru the ttiost tavorabte ibrum is sozncki®w unscrupulcaLej or uttspotting, thts Cotnt fnd,^ itzstcad that it is uorl5Lstettt wittt the usttal wurlcia7p of our adversary yy:stena.•'3z1 This Court agrces with that jiotioti and now wi11 exauzune tvitether the language ai ixsrte watxlatcs ihe case be heard iii Venice. .Is Venice ihe Chrv> and l3nlv T°cartsnt? If tttc partics intended to ci,>nftzte themselvL-S tcr the jurisc;Eictioti of the Vctietian ccaurLs, then thr; iY'ouit would cxpect to See expiicit words Jin7iting thCnf to iliat Io"le, phrasr.ology such as B" Id. at 730-73 !(yi:c>(Klion maxl:s and eitatirnis tatnittad)_ szo"Ctinttzirtecf Wi Appx. 1 07 FEH-if3-2009 10sOBAM From: ID:GRAYDOh! FEAD F'ase°059 R=93y o2118d2009 wED i0:16 PAx 21056/078 ••soEc," "o[llj+," `GkcjIlSlvc," •`vrithOut ext•eJ)(i.on," ";t:il,» bLt:(Dd1tIt1Cd ttl.» i'iitkd ffit) other (3Irlt;C " and , so ldu'th.322 1:Vt:il an iiJlj7zll`ClItj4 tT)itnC3:li<7ry 1vorcl stlCh a5 "sfliill" h,rs been #bttnd to trt ea:cius)ve.323 TIv orl}y `VQl'ci t>f qut1llf"tatlo.n here ts "cotsipetent" .i`Ywn tirgucs that word nlakes this case quite distint;ui5ilatile iiorn tlgc Vin€li llistrict ca.u,, Cincr.I„y CIK, Wherc t11e cvntract tt5e,4 tlzc t^m^ "xx)n-exaEusive.,,^2•t Tlle language used here t,p}xMsrs tu ulnfcr,yiu'LSdict'roal ift tlle. Veric:tian cotlrts but not testrict it there. Cc)laatzart ,iltti.lttr languagt: "fflttc Tribunuts af the Repttbiic nf. Vc.nezttcla, in thcs City E)#' Cat-acWs, )iavc,)ut'isd1ct9oil"- wllic.h was found to "tla!•cily [FicJ a stritrt, unaliibigtityus (-bz•um sclmtioii clause * *'" lt dom not S• tate that the courts of Venex.tzela have cxclusivc juzjseiis;tian * * t tt merely siates *^* that the courts of Venezuc:la have jurisdactian. The cTa.xt,sc d«c-s nUt przclude c:oticut•reut jurisdiction * " *":s2s 'l'h¢ sanae rest,lt was found where the iaartics "submit[ted to] the jurisdiu-tit)n of the courts of SingapoxG""26 A contract a rt:cing di ^ Vutes "shall fall wathin ittc jurisclic.t^tion of the c Likewisc, clauscs :,taina "tl3c panits subtriit to the juristiiction c)f the courts <>f New Ytyrk,,,;z$ •`jtJlic: eUurL5 ref C:al ►fornia, C:ouhty of (Jzatlge. shall have jurisdiction ov,-,t' the parties itt Y"' Cf Anl2t1t.1titIB1, !'Gn1ltsslvC tar MandatLfiy 15)itui!e tt;. Foru7yl SCie'cti+Dit C1.fttf:Y.S 1.i714Cf Staic tAiiV (3()()$ j, 32 /{ ^ R(jl)1 419 ("`nlat)dtiory forum Se)e4-tit^n tltitt,Ee have contuincct words ssach as `cxelitsivc' ur 'sek' or Ym!}' t12:tt th•E CilYtlrftcti/fg p3ftiBy intCdltlCtl 14 t)litlCC jurP9llit tiWn eXCltis whic)l i:klicute ►ve_ )f jttristliCf2olt ts I2oi p7vdi1'wtj by t1YbTtdAftXy tIr exc)usive lanbuage, tJtn cEuuse tviEl be deezaicd permissivc tanly"). aeC al,stl v !za(el, 2007-0ilita.5963, 2007 W!, 3293379, PaW 10lit I3tvt. hEo. U6Ap-1260, ¶t4, qilt)tittp, Argroa Ctarrzrn1nrc08irzb7.r C1roup. lnc. p. Tefetron, 1999) D.N.B. No. CIV 99-257-37, 2()t)0 Wl, 36936 (' ; !m. (Nov. 19, t tnantlaeQry focumsclcctislu clause 'qautit tat'ttDC conlraatittR patties to claunxt: a partieaLir 1'vrum io the ra;clusio cJcasiy displ,ly tlta ipttent i of a1i other"). a7-+A7nernted (.'rDep. v!)iserrotrfv ► aze ,. Hnfding A.(a. (N.ll_(;x.7DO(}), 6F.Supp. 1371, 1375, Gc)mbi»ct! Uloticros Memorandum" at 12. :zs CA ,Seghrrrar 0rentuKa ct NaYiern 7runsoir1x4 (w 4. 19$9), 677 FSttpp, 675, 674-680. U. v. Uceanogruptr.Pa, ,SA. & (7 V +19ilts Grwupz, f,k1 (Jan. 26. 2009), 5.3). 'i'ex. C'ivi) Action Nta, 1I-tfl3-3449, 2009 tVI, 175083, at *1-2 (clause stating •jurisdiclion (is] in Itarris c'tyutity(, TCxas)" ntrt lrcclCral ctlurt) :illd txclusive m)d ultows;d dcgend;tntx to rannve the suit tu CntUc Cu, r. dlcuier, tde:irrcr dc Amjn!!1, a! *2 (clini,r .tsfit)g P.C. (Jan. 20, 2009), 6th C;ir. No. 07-300$, 2004 WL 129584, "digAjtes 't "' shall ite rescylveti fn the T+lewton FalLr, 0hioi,j 1NmIticipctl Cut,rt t)f the Cotsnty, Olti:)f,J Gaqtnlqit '!'rvmbuIl P)ims Gvun",st)owtxt clofemttttsts fa rt:m®vc tlltd suif to Fcxt9cx:i) court). zac Wexi v. ltctinfinw livldifag.s (S.17.!°la. 20Q4), 315 F.Su)Sp.2tt 126 I: 1265. St:e n1aY1 t xses cofEectW al 1 w77,,, f)t. 7. iaa CreAtn,t, 7ilc Muthedirrg ltar.. p. 3lC:I1 IrzicrntzlL, .S r.J, {S.I3.! !^, 1t}96k, 922 F,Sttpp. Kc wj, v. 1"rcx fxsri 1534, 153&. lnrltzr,c.rin, Inc. (C.A.5, 1974), S03 p .2tt 955, 957 (rarmn sekctibn ct?alsaruetl ag;+inst the drattar). clausc z:mbigunus aru) 00 of 78 Appx. 108 FEB-iB-2009 19:0aqM From: TD:Gt2AYt7Dht HEfAD Paae;060 R-93% vm^ t^vi Gvv3 ,saU 14: lf} 2°A8 ^Q41/479 anyr itc6011 at law rc;Iating to the stibjcct aiattcx or the intcrpre.t:ation of tl^is canirdci;,':U^ and "ja p:ut:yj hereby expressly ct7assents to tjic Pcrsotttal jurisclictit}ta of tlle state and fii;der73 L,yUtly Ioc af.et{ iTt i'c^c11]sylvit,2ia"3io were fc>uz2d to )'iG 4ta;temePlts t;ottlCrt'ing n(,fn-eXGlusiVC jtli`)sCfICtYQtI to the rcfcrc,aceti uiurts. The tcrtn "t>r>tilpeteryt" katust be st;rutirtitid. l^crzs .7:bmpetcw " meun „I;YGItlsiuc "l C'tiuns that have canfrnnted r;#eciarWiotzs in conU.t.tct`c that a certain ,jurxst}i^tion "shall bc cc>mPctVnt" have found it to inurelv provide one-but not. tilt> rnity--(®.rutn for licigataioii.331 CottrtS aPpiying Italian 1nw to contrstcts des;Iaring ata I.talim cuatrt "shatl be c¢nVctt;nt" have fotinci the Italinii Goatrts weri not tlae exclusive fora for disputcs.'';z 1t3 contrast, language reading "the ottly competcrit ibratn will be" aia Italian court vvas found tc) ne an eXcltisive fnrtun sclec:Tiou Ciauge because o('ttac: words '°only" and ..wi)I be.,°113 4imilarly. "tJSe cosnpctent fartatn is Torino [I'uritt, Italyj, tivas li^.ewise fotuxt to te exclusive because of the designation oi"I'ttrin as "tbe" forum- t'atlwr than "a" fortuxt.334 'IT^e plain tt1eas3ings of utUrds apply in reading tc7rttr^:ts;^'4 Cous^ have long used dictionwit s in tlleir intergtt;tsttivtr ef1Q^s.;^ So ha--' this Cotsti.'.7 The lirA law tlictionaiy iil 3r^ i f>artt tI e^rcrrr ( >'noF1e, fnc v: .$'upt V»y^., (,X! C.`cY. (CJt.tJ, 1 997). $17 F';2d 75, 76. `3k d ti/rn» v. 7'rtrN 1'asidictn, J^:r•. (I cb. 9, 2009). N.D.Cal. No. C 0$-3616, 2009 Wt. 323036, at 4. E. ?_PC.' 20(10, l,%r v, 5C fF farartls Bnc (5.1.7.I>l,ll. 2000), 86 RSupp-2d 274, 277. F g- Se'.vn- Wp.iss 4 C. o. Iera lrualcy -V.d. (.Mienc 11, I c#cm)), S. t).iV Y. No. 99 ( 0 Appx. 109 FEQ-38-2009 10:09AM From: ID:G2AYi30t`t !-IEAp Pa9e:061 R=93y 02/tal2009 erSD 10:I4 8e1x 0Q6zltt79 I•az(;li4h otzaits tlrc; word "cottlpctctat>"'-1s 'l'6via Genturits later it str!) v,as Itat in ta az3talti-vcslttane let;a,j dictioszaty.'39 l.3lrtck;s• says. it relates to the ``cciptu;ity of an official body to cto sanrcthing .--tite cogirt's Cnt11I3ctCdAce tt) enter a valid judt;tncnti>.'04° The fir:;t cnmTreltciisivc }:ngiish dictionary said it ii7ca.tnt "cvtivenient **^ stiffieicn7L"341 '.±vcantpctent," said Noah Wcpastcr, an attoraKy before hi,y 4cxibari`Iilg on a Iffi of 1rarlntess drudgery, "jn a judge or coank *** iniplie., ,, riot c'r autIu)r►ty to heal' and CiCt.Ci1113titS" a ccasC.:3'2 Ilfs TtvCaltieth ("CXafLii'y :sticck.'sS(ars defiilc tl1G word 59727t91H'rV. ^^3 '1'1H (c')aPar1y IJielrrsncrry r3e !"xned it as ":adcqttate aUtltnl'tty or cttialitrcation.,`3411 •)`i'e (cxiLogtap>iic rs at the Oxford University .isretis, whn relied Jicrtvily org that dictionary for their O*rel lsn^,•[6a•h Dit-lJontrrY, say Scyrnetl)ang "cotnpetetita' is "icccptcd a,s having legal autiiori€y to dckiJ with dpar(icuiar trlatte;r'.'a' and "[flegally autbotxzcci or qualitiet3, :abie to tnke coi;ttir.ancc eligible, adttti4sihle."346 `i'hr-w defltzi[ians comport wig)t the C'otirt's usnxe t(zat 'i;ompctent" is aPennissivc; t-atlat;r than a rnaaaciatory word. Venice I.c .41'roper 1'^rum-T3trt S'o Is Cireem t:ourrtv The C'ourt constrites the tcnna c+f a cmatract against its draii.zr. While thcre is sonic ssateitae:nt of ncgQtiatitYns aver the coittt-,ict, therc ► is no indication tha;re woe pegatiations on the tirrurrt sclrxtion language. As the coiatract aapears to have been preptu'eci by'I yaoti----it ix printed on uc Joiui R.agatl & William RaSteil, l..es 'ternm cie }a I.,cy; or Ceat;tiue dit7'untt and ot,gcaaae tivoads astsi icrmes of the crnmaeesn lawas alSd sittttatcs ati°this rcalmc nbvy in ttsc ( 1636). .Ya"Ciiics Jacsata & 711oanas E:cflyaac'I'mntins, The Law-Dictionary: F,ap1a' 1 atgii:5)t Izw ( )st Amet'icatt ¢tl. 1$1 I). raZittg The ltise, Progress, and llreseni Statc ofthc .NU r;IF1L'1C's l.nw Dictionary ( i3rynn A. Ciarner 71h eei. 1999) 279 (clurining °cnmtaetcnce"), ;s„ Naihan Bailey, f li: Uniwcrsal 12tynwtot;ic;aP Engtish I1ic:lionary ( 3f3 1724). Noah WchS'tsa; ^itnerictua Dictionary oftfaG English Language (tf;"Lii). :Sce W..bstces Now Interraationa[ C3ittioataty uf`tlic Fnglish l.angt>4;c (William lklErn Ncilsctin r.d. 2d ed 1957). S45 ("ieKalEy cfu:alificd or capable •* * with respxt to authority w' jurisc3iction to taka cognixancc or act") 7`iiirzJ Ncw lntw°nH tizenal Dictionary ot'the r_ngIish i..ang^uage, Utiafxidgcct and Wcbucr's (Philip 13;abcock (;ova ed. 1960) uattieri or c:apzchk *^* riatfieyrimd to roct or passcsscd eaf juriscliciion"). (")e^atly 44 2 Ccntury C)ictiunxry: An C_ncyc &ryrxdic Lexicoai of ihc Faa$iiA l,angtrage ( (deFtting "campc.tcn4e), Witlfam Dwisht 4vhitncy ed.1g9s) 1145 au Naw Oxford Antcria;aat f9ic;tionaary (T':rin V1cKcan cd, 2d ed. 2005) 347. :''" I 5hortos Oxfdrd f3oygli.ch P3icticsar^ry (1ki(1iant 1t. '!°rttnabla a, Angus Stave>tstu cds. 5tft cd. 20t12} 457, 62 of 78 Appx. 110 FEB-16-2009 20:09AP't Fromc ID: GRAYDON l-tEPD Paee ° 06i R=93y 02/18>2009 WEn sa: z5 PAx Qf(363tp78 th:tt ccml.prtny's IGttencen(l and was 1ran.smitt4d to IaFqusp 1)y c>ne crl`-]`yuatt's 0l11ciJis---,it7d il3L {irrunl clatlsc would irc to thc drailer's ticl.xctii, tllc Ianl;uut;e NwitE t5c ccsl#stxttcd ,at;ailist ! ycon."" '(7lc potsibility of sislittuat; tiYe ciiiTercttccs bvtwcen the p,trtics a ►ld having tliis Court ride circuit i.o -Vetlic.u at1ti ti-y the case thcrc has Coutt karc7ws of a t;ivili:ln ccrurt of one nation sitting ita ;zucttlTC:r wa..Surttislt- and tllat took a treaty to 6ring abcrtst.3" And the onlv sttch !lnycricael wut•t.,b..Itowtl to it---.the United Sitatcs Court for <;hirla°---•wc:nt crtltcrf l7usiness tiix decades ap,-349 77te Cot;tt•t is bereft of at7y cotnptttahle autilclrity and mtt.tit mai;.sr a dcs:ision betwcen Xenia and Venic:e, IJnder O1uo law, tlae CUurt t'nlds the forum sc[ectioti clatasa and its desigtlatiotl of Vcnicc tta conipe.teat" rtze3xt$ Venice is a proper fcrrttrrt for this action. 13tzt c;stlizlg it "Gotnpetent" does ziot tnt*c: it the otae and anly fr,rtmt, '117e cotitrtlct beI'tsre the Court does not bar latrquip !i'tyrn litigatit3t; here in Xenia in the Ctattrt of'C:anunonl'Ictss rrl'Creene County, i)hio. Scx. Krntv Y. Areepeirt 1rx10nccYirr, /irc. (C../l.S. 1974), Ycark ag Appx. 111 FEB-18-2003 10: 09AM Fr om: ID: GRRY[3t7N HEAD Pa ge • 0ti3 R=93 k oa/1at24D9 iXEf3 10115 PAX 2jd531a73 11Ae plttir►tifT's tnOtinn for jlailgtncnt on the pfesrdinl;5 on t8ie forttni '^clactaota clause dinci principles of cotttity is granted. The plnirititl's n)otic.,n tc ► .Strike defcttses tyn tlto.x; iSxuLS is ttatltcd. ":l`hc dcft:ndstni,s' tnotion (orjtull;tnent on the pleadings csn those isstacs is cicnieci. Is There Personat,ItsriscIiEczlinn Over tlic .Defciidants°r 1 ycon, 3'fatxdler, and ttols}suas & hdycrs have indicated their it,ttctation t<> Clt; a mcttian to dismiss for want 01`pcrson:rl jurisdiciinn. "jTjt is for #f ►c public intt rc:st and policy to m,zl:c.,^;n cPrci to litigation **^ thnt ^,uits may trnt be itiinwrti ►1, while zucn ttrc inortsl,"zso f'eMMcrl ,durisdic l ion 13a:4 iGx The cornerstone u-,scs of personal jutisdiction--...Int4r,rs.tirrnGrl A4fwc,'fl it"orl(MFra &'r>fkvwagcrt,^^ 13"Wer lC'ir:g, " < ttd ► n,suhr Me1,1I Indu.stry;►s't ataiong uthcrs-c3rc cjf !,w :tudcnts' cascbcx)ks (br their f irst-yenr civil procedure ci ►lsses.35s 'I'iac forrner tt:^-Wrrm ot'intcrnreting jurisdiciion, which in rnme insrances ms;^,n( 13zGri was nn court in wliich a wronged party co,zlti seek relief,156 has iMeti rolgxcrJ gt•eaily. Une-C upon a time, a cortsoratioti cc.)wld otily bc,crcd in tlse jttrisdicxi^nl1 wllicfy incorporated it,35' 'lhis rule wa,4 long ago zbanc#otyea.;-" Personal jurisdiction is still necessary for a cnttrt to cotzsider claiaris ag,1jt1!j1 a ;¢5q £1c cwPr Ins. t.'(c v: i ick9s (C<.(°.I^.M3^. 194 1),18 F. C:14. 532, 539 (NtD. /!?tGrlllltl(D0711J .Sh(xc Crr r. wrtshirrgtvn qfrr vJ'(in^tae^a. ^r.tnq>, srrul P/irCerneaat 1.54, 90 1:. !ct. 95. (19dS), 326 t1.S, 3I0; 316, l^6S.Ct. asa FT'rsrtd-Kde Yc>1/u;ivrrgr.n r. Wpodawt (1980), qqq U.S. 286, 29.5, I(M S.CI5519, 62 L.l:ti.2d 490. ass Bttvs,^cr }t ti$g CPtp. v. IiuclVL:wF4zz (19851 47) U.S. 467, 105 S.Ct. 2124, 8s i..1;tt.2d 528. 3''0 rPsulri .Wrw{ Irxfiaroiry C'a., Ltd, r. Appx. 112 FEB°18-2009 19:10Ah1 From: ID'Gi2AYt3ON HE.PJ) Paset054 R=93% aztta^zati^ wEB xa:zs Pax ^ja65/47tf dcfencIant.3sa It has bce%, s^iid t}lc "fouudation c:>f,jtarisdiction is physical iowLr.''360 But while Ii&E)CI2ty cSn be Pn7pt1SC,d jpr tiGt.SCCDtaductGd outside ajidrivClictiC+it's botzlc-rswIiicl3 (tavc cffcets tvithist thernin gencral aaaly a party who "Pu1po.scftaliy availti it;;alf' of a jut-issiic:tican niay l7C st1Gt1 ihcrc.a62 'Fnr 4xanypla, lutvittt; an ai;imt within a.jitri.4clictiztn cata stjbju;t a t;lya7lpany 10 jtiristlicticgla tlzerc.'" ()hio crnd Per.s°ontrL JurisrJtc[ian tAidti "dazlg-arin" statute, R.C. 2307.382 canfera juri5ciic;tictn in the cO>xrts ciJX)n ssnyoac "[tjransactittg any btisiitess in tI44. ' :itiite'r-3" and "(cjunt.rtcting to supply **^ t;{xx{s in ttzis state.,''`s So do the Civil It.uics.'j`'° ° I.ltis is t.rziarc)y proper says t(se R^.^:staternertt: "(1) A atKtie Jhas power to exercise judicia[ jurisdiction over arorcign corporation which dcx-s business in the state with respmt tca r~ituses of action arising f`roin the business done in ttte :;tatie. (2) A state has power to cxerci.^e judicLi1 jurisdiction ovLy afcsreign corporation whic:tt dtae-s husitac,ss in iltc st7tc with respect to ctuscs of action that c!o not arise from ilte l7usiaiess ciane in dYc state i4' tTtis busium is so coniintzuuy and sttbstanciat as to make it reasonable for tlac statc tn c:xLrci;;c sucll jurisdia;tic7n.";r'' 1"hc Cotatt I2tis bceit asked to fititd uncctn.ctitutiorsal R.C. 1335.11. 1:lowcver, the CJnited StatcS Suisr=e Ccitn'L says "[i]t is not the habit of (hc Court to decide questions of a cortstituticsctal natttrG -blO,rybOly,: YOvcf }tiA tt 984), 11 Obip St 3d 154,156, 11 (YL3tz 471,464 rr.r:2d 538. A,fW07tF1Id V. MCYbIL^ 0.91 T,I, 24.1 U.S. 9 0, 91, 3.7 S.Ct. 3`13, {Y' 2<_r--d_ 6(]73_ "l lltaitC'iaf Sfatcs KNItrttinur►r C Appx. 113 FEB-16-2009 10.10AM From: Tp.CaRAYDE'N HEflD Pa9e°065 R=93Y 0211-812009 WEv ].a: z6 FAX EQ6S/07S unlc.s,ti absctlutoty ucec.^ssary tca a decision of the ca:ar.".368 T'11es ('c,ur€ will r$et lil,evvis It is not neccsyttt*y ta consider thi;: is;,ctt at this tittat;. 'The C)hia Supreme Court ciirc:ct3 coyurts to Itsa; atwO-.tep prcaccss tor detcrnrining if they flave jtdri.l-dictiun on tl'Qsc; res' tde»t otit.siile this statc: they nlUu "(1) detcr7nil?e wltctljcr the srate's `Iung-atyll' statute ttiyd the applicabic Civil Rule c(:nf'et- peiS ,ona1 jurisdictzon, wId if W. (2) 'Whet13c:r 1;ra17tittg .ItXriS4ici.lU17 lIt)der fliC ,tratute and c$tic: rur>t;ld dc:prive tlic ciefLtyd; process cs•I' ltlw ptrrstsant t.O thc Fvurtecnth Ametidment.":u'9 The Southert9 i)istrict of ()Jaiv says Cnurts weighing 1vItClher personal jUriSdictiuD axiSts on the b+isis of t;tanYaCts, with a 4tatG ()ttght t(, cortsi[ler thC nUmbir, nature, and quality a1` its cnnlacts; whether i]tc cause of action arises from tlaosc Mnt<'icts; tlt.r interest in the s#ate in alipwittg the suit; and the incc7nvenienw to the parties"7n "1°"c ^c Qns^ituticmaI touchstosae" is whctlt.er a (lei'cndant miglit reasc)nably have becn eXpectcd to be :;utr.d in the forum siate.-371 (This is nnt} one reason wtay i'edcral catms sittin}; in l"'e111agylvansa could have distnissed suits tsled against (3t>d and Satant,372) 't`hcse principlc;s have bc;cr ► applied ttot rnsrely to companies but individuais--as with tltc court t13af found Rint;u Statr was )°' >t.rlsxOndc" r, T"r?cssrc Yullvv Atrlh. ittritcrl ^tcttex (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.F.t1. 688, uotin * ( t905); 196 U.S. 283, 295, 25 :1..1243. 4<) t,.Fd. 482. . q t^ 6ur/nat v Frremcn'.s LJfaYilsililY e^ Pns'ivn Ffanrl (I99#1), 49 01tI0 yad af yru.rlra^a of`the /^ullc^ c^ t^y G<'Gtslcrsa u. ClrraxtirY:xivx 't3d 224, 225, 551 l,lt~2^( ggq (1994X 70 Uhia y1.3d 232, 235,236, (38 WeL".2d 541, citing C:a., L.f', v. li?r, .k'.r Fvcu.fs. luc. ()994). 68 Ohio St.3d 131, 183-184, 624 N.1's.2d 30411. t1..S, 3print C'onultrrniratir7rrs g70 •4ee M&W Cvntrnrtcsr.s, htc, tt Arch A?itacrctJ (.^rr/,a. (8.1). t3hin 1971}. s35 r.Supp. C'r^. (f.;.t1.2i, I965), 343 972. v. Fcrnaonayl3ufsr 6(i (^p.2ri 2^,5. k.2tt I$f. Cf. C7t IeEz(v. /'sreblo do fontm).2009), 11t1y C,.ir. No. 07-11958, 4009 WL 330935 (p1iuititT') claim mtrsc srixc out uf de-fendant 4 ccmtacts whla the '71 Altrtlvnal City f3rrnk v. 1'evrr, v. 1?us`lzewic. 179 Ohio App.3d 3$2, 2008-011ia47 t 5, 888 N.E.2d 52, 116, citing (1085), 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S,Ct 2174, 85 t..T:d.2d 528 and 13augc:r King f."r,trxb fi'r,utr'stur (1980), 444 U.S. 286,295, 100 S:Ct 5Sh. 6241•d.2d 490. H'ol°lrt-td'rde Valksvagan Z'cx7a. r. y' Sc:c llrrilc.ei-Statev c.r re•l INa,w v. ,Sares» & Nfs$tu(j'(WX).pa. 197].), 34F.R.D. 282, 283 1991). 2.1311& Cival Action No. 90-0742, 1991 Wr, 42399. Cf, "t7rdca to Furmalixe DisniismandJunr x v. Cvd(Mtir. 25, C7:amhe,x v. (rrkt (Qct. 14, 2(108), iDist. Cx. ctfDongJas Cty.. Nob.. I)ocket .al 1ti'iib Pa'eJuc!'ecc,° q 1075, Nas; ever be scMcc cffectualrcd on the 1ae,nW pCd`undRnt' 462 (case dlsiniA-cKl azs "thcrc c4n ^tw^v jc^urnatst s.comlrexaxt^accslnewst^^c^ml^O(78t;uin^gsxl.pdP,Fxstaccc:GVad Feb. 12, 2tX1g)_ `^vail,^ie c ►taline ^t 66 of 79 Appx. 114 FEB-18-2009 10e 10AM Fram: ID•GRflYD13N HEAD !'a3e:066 R=93x 42/18l2009 arED 1O: S.6 naot a0671478 sufrjc.•c;t 1.0 1,;4aLraljurisdictinn in Ncw York becattsc 1)f'liis cxtcnsivc contacts watiy thc ^m^ire St,^tc dcsPitc his hcisig tt rc.^;ident ofI:tigtanci.:l7s Jtlr°i i'Ycon says thcrc is "no itllcgatic)n flknt + * * (it) has an * * * agent t. * * irl Ohio 4 * * „3•:4 But parent c0n2P;ulics have been found €o be thc; :it;el7i.5 of tticir Sub,ixliaric:s, thtrs bringing foreigi7 c;.omp,•t;lics of3YC;ravisu outside the jurisdicuon of AinGric:l.n c01n-t5 evithin their ambit.;75 Aatd if sahsicfi 7rics atc mere depaalrnc.nt.s of tlicir parents, jtirisdicticsn ovcr 41ic subsiciinry is prnpcr,s76 Another way of louking at this entLrprise theory o1` jurisdictinst presents itself from itye cl:;Eendants` owtt hricfs. All dcii':ndants in their ntntion Cor judgrnent on tlle }steaditat;s sout;ht to hdave the forum selection cl.attse in the c;cirttmct tictwceta Ltxlttip and Tycon appiy to them eN^cn tliough onlv 'a'ycnn signc:d tlie confracLs7a A casc they cited spoke of hi7ur "closely related" ePltZtie}f cCf(Ild be bound to a urntract,':s And Enquip -,ugucs the yuhsidiarics arc rnc:rcly "alter cgos" of tlyc par•ent. Whiie RobBins & Ivlym and Pfaudlcr°Y obycction is that pc:rsotld juri.sdictiolz cannot bc a.^;serfed nver inciispcnsable parties to the litif;niion, thc t;ourt vsoald note they thcinsclvcs appi,-ar to be anicnable fc: suit in Ohio. liarisd ►ctiorl over Robbins & Myers is the ctuaresL It is iatcorporat•`d uacfcr the l;xwy of tlais state and has its principal place of husincss in Greene Cqitnty. Pfaudlcc; ihough a I?elitwarc cc,Mot-ttivn, has an agmt in this state (Ur tlle service ofpr«cess. '11aat also s<:elrss to niake it sctbjcc:t to being haled into an Ohio court. ara 411KC0 1nJiar rer; lru. V. Lenrrran (N.Y.t~tY.Sap.t`i, 197.5^ 85 fvt'r.;:c.2c1465, 469-4710, 377 rcfcrred to in !hc apinic►n only by ftis real r Appx. 115 FEB-18-2009 10:10AM From: ID:CaF2AYDfaN !lEAJ Pase:067 R-93•• 02/18/2009 WEn 14a16 PAx 0d68/076 More uncenain arc the fcireigti dcfendants. 'i'ysxan, an Ita.l't7n cc>tT0rati.ott, sstrnits it sold equipment in IEuS stiate, but clttiins the value of. its setles was "only" ahc3ut 12,000 curos in the last two yLaars ^,'nquip refire,,;ented it. lt notes tiierc is "no a11e,"altistn that ***[}t] ha, an office, employee, ag4nt, 4tdc.lres.s, b7nk nccottnt or atty other pre.4enc:e in Ohio, and *^*[neverl has b=a rGgistc.^rc;cl to do business in this :titatc."374 T'htls its Ct?ritalc;N says 'f 'vt;oat, wea'G "de ta9ittima]s" for put:poses of apPiylng R.C. 1335,11 to cstabltsll jtarEsdlction. 13tal bo(ii tftat statute and R,L`.. z3U7.?V might mafre it subject to suit here. Tbough the lacn; at-c unclear it'Tyuyn's con^^cts with Ufaio make it.inictzablc ko suit under those Iaws. 'I'hc; Court believes that. Enquip and Tycon ought to readily ktiow what business they conducted wit(iin Ohio dtn•in-g ihc'tr nearly twcrtty year rclationsliip. '1'#le Court orders them to lil4 ry joint report on the t>•u$incss ilicv conducted in the State of Ohio durinr- the tiaite i^nquip aand iis predecessors represented Tyco61 and its i?redecessnrs. 17h0 relationship of I2:obbins & Myers Itflli:t iia Ohio is the 1mt kncawl3 to the. (:'ourt. It is an ltaliaii company owned hy an Ohio cc'rporatiUti. What contacts it has in this state at'e itttclcair. 'nhe C'atrri:laas gone through this exercise in order to givc; the parties indicitiotts of the issucs it will be looking at when it ecynsyders tJic qucztion agaitz. Which it w% ber^jtise the C'ourt ordcrs the parties to press;nt tiacit° argunicnts or) pcrscanal j urisdicfion. Mcake. Yr'ur Matinrzs AlT parties who have raisLd the det'enses that (1) the asurt tac:iK,s,jtarisdic,^tion over them, (2) that C'^recne County is n.fr3l71►TY non c4I/ivE'itid.^n.S. (3) 1l2'r2i R.C. 1335.11 does tiot apply, or (4) that R.C. 133511 is unconstitutional shall file either (1) a mc3(iort (c,g. for jud.grncnt on the iaicttdinM t.i)r stinamary.judgn.t;nl, tcr disniiss) asserting thc defciz5c;4, ur (2) awaiver o!`thosc defenses. I'taiistitTs anti defendants making ccnuztcrclaitnns ttsay Ea[so Q-ktkc tnotietns to dispm of personal jrni-,diction .`Comhiaoad Motions McmtDrandurn" at 5. G$ ot`78 Appx. 116 FEB-18-2009 10:11AP1 From: ID:GRAYDtN HEAD Page:0'"c8 R=93x 02118/2009 WEn 10:17. PAx Zd69i078 dccf,c:zasc;s to their ctainas. The zt7otions ait.d waivers shall he filed auithin twcnty-orte days of tftc date tltis order is lilt:cl. All defendants sihLtll malc:e tltcir motions ancl waivcrs,jisintly in a aingle ple:tdiilg, All plai»tiff;a shall ntike their motions ttncl waivcrs jointly in a single pleading. A brief in oppositinn shnlt be pcsmittc;d on any Qirrtion made. Udliiie tiiis Court's rules ordinarily pellnit a mply briet' in rebuttal of the olipcssit.9tan hriaf;"`p it will nctt be pcrtgaittc.d lrere because the Cntzrt (1) wislte.,; to settle this issue expeditiously :a.nd (2) is cotlfidcnt l3u:13nz'taea vvsl1 sttf'ricsently address the is,escs in tltcir init.i4l fitihgs."Rt Any zsa,iY rqttcstiug a hcaritig on tllese issucfi shall rcqttLst it by a separate motion. 5trme dcfen.dants ltflvc sil.;rte:d their reccnt pleadingi as ",Vecially :ttspcatinl;" in this t'ot ►rt evcn thouPh their initial plcaciings laeked such fanguage. '1'he pttrtic.s arc; asked to ^-pzcificaliy addren whethcr this means tht; dcfcndants there6y subtztitteti to the,jurisdiction of the Court, Cuveat ,S'c:riptur I3vcause tl7e t.">attrt i.s rc:i3tic:stini; alZ patties tO at.ssert sevetal of t9teir ticfetsc, ,juintly, ttie Court reali7p-q the nonnal liurii of hiltr,w pages iniposed by the Iocul rules will prove inadecluat.t~3'z I"lzc Ctatart will waaiwe it ror all zr?oticargwgd replies related to the questions d'a=9scd in tdic y:rt°vi(itas section. 'Ihis does not, however, grant the p-artic:s liccnsc to run 'kvild in their briel-ing. Co,^n^wl are given this reminder: 13rev'sty is tllc soul csf wit, drinking, lingerie, and pleac3itsg:383 A'-id, yc,^, thc ''s" Sce t.oca} i(xtEe 2.o5{!1)((:) of tl7c Casrt ot'Gonunon I'lcas: ctfGmc=ie C:otmty, Gonet°a1.Uivisiott, 'xt Cf . 1)de.xeI 1'rdps S.r.L sa {isrstnllE 89.vint.ss <"rexftir l1,1».l (; (Jan. 14, 2OQ9), S.D.N.Y. No. (17 ('iv. 9580, 2009 WL !t4 i ) 5, 113 {"MC i]tln7tYer of t•tYAY:s13--not trc:eC---alf"y fr11P41 in cQflTICCIiLln with tbi5 11t''gation is ftl1P arjtJ ;16t;Py lx:)ayttd ahnt: which, in my vicxt, ^,ras riocessaay Cor [thi;; cuse"}. 3fz .octtl lt.ale :.05(I1XA)(3) of'thd Couat ort;oinmot ► 1'Irua oftirccnc CoDUity, (ien04a} UJ3ivision. ^x William .rilAatk(espc:are. 14amtet, art t(, sc• '?, l. 90 (wit); C1wr{cs l.amh, John Woodvil (18i3Z), th. 3 {diinkinw); Dorlrslay Pxri;er, qltotnct in Alescmtdu° Wctollcott. "Qtlr Mrs. Purker," nt his While Ittsnse }'3tmas (1934) 146 (littpric); nnd (`,aiei.ti Pliniu.5 C-aecilius Secuttdtts i't'ltity tha Youngcrj, i;izistics, 6ook t, epis.2p in inglish in l'Ete Lcticrs ofthc Ytrttnger Yl'uy+ (John IhLawap'e F,eiyzs trahs. 1890) 26 (plcading) tmd in [.;ctiti in Selected LCttcnc of Kity, Witl ► Jawlcs For tha tAsc of Schools ((.:tsnsantitte I. Prichnrct & L'dward It. l3Lraturd s.-els, hie wL[. 1896) 29 t",,'r'ihrl rregutrr ir1 efius'is ras,;encllr n/ hrcmittz.c, plhcwl), 69 af78 AppX. 117 F.i~B-18-2009 10:IIAM From: TD:[a'}?AYDC>h! HEAD f'a9e:069 12=93% 02/1812409 ATED 10:17 BB:x E0701o78 Court is r.sY;;ni7TIYtt prerogzative of the ('ourt. Wtis Process Srit'ficient? C:iv.lt. 12(Ii) ,x;yuires tlte defense o!' a insufficiency of process to be as5etted in t17e atscwer or a rnotioii bcfos°c the arzswer. The defcndant5 irt their answc;rs all 34tic:rts;c€ t11at seryBce Wiz,ti iltsufticiittt. 'Mic functiojt of service of }troccss is to alcrt a party of the peirdenry of a lawsuit agsinst him e*#[a?sd] no court Sh(i(kld forbid tha; rc.^c)IutRon of conflicts on the tl-terits of a case when Che peart'rGs to thc actic►n arc fuEiy aware of it-; Peitcfettey, by sotnc participation in the pmcec,-ciizags."384 Whxle c:asc3aw formerly supported the latter part of thttt sttttement,`45 the Olltaa SupremC Court has said that active parlicilsatiun taever waves the detense ifpraperty raised.'sG In that casc, a party claimed it was a7cver properly settied but vet p:erticip;strd irt the 1nwsuit. Thc Suprem,o: C'ourt fouttd that ctcspitc cvvrYUnc°a irretre.viabJe time having flown awtay, tlSc lawsuit was for tzaught. Such "ganie.sm:ut4hip" w statement that the United St.ates Suprctne Court, was "final not hecausc we are inrallihte, but ws:, are infallible orily because we arc; final.,a" As this is a complicated case aire,3dy, the Court wislacs to r>?st)!ti'e this issue. Ali pal.vcs whct have raised the defenses that sctwice of prnccss was ht,tttIiLi4nt 4ha11 file eithel' (1) a lfliatiork (e.g. fnrjudgtaaent oit tltc pleadings, for stuttmary jttdgtnent, to dismiss) a.5scatsng the defenses, nr (2) a waiver of tUose dc9enseg. These motions and waivetx whall be filed within 'k$ R^iYrt^/^rrov v, Yoru (! 9V), 1 i Qltio St.:;d 154, 159, 11 013R *fi71, 464 N.1:.2a# 53FC (l:lifford J. Liro%ryt, J., disscntiaz). ;8S M.g 1Jtt^ fcca r, Itu(sir^«viai MeanUrit^1 Portrrge L:ty, lJnsp, (1984), !tr t)1Ein Ap}t.:3ci 8Q, 160l3RS5, 474 N,1i.2d fi36. 5ee ffJroz>u V. ClaiVtmity Ur6traLJx[.v rtf Clc-vr;Wttcl, Jnc., 114 Ohio St.3d 141. 2007-(7hin.3762, 870 N.3<.2d ?14, cyllabieS. 'x' fd. 117. Ct; Id. T20 (1'feiCcr, J., dissmting). xNt I3DZ,wn v..3Urrr (1953), 344 (.d,.3. 4d3. 54b, 73 S.Ct. 397. 97 L.M. 469 (t;3cksarr, )., urnctu`ring). 70 of 78 Appx. 118 FEB-18-2003 10:11AM From: ID:GRAYMN }iEAD Pase:070 R=33% vki Loe cvVY wau 1Vair RAX ®a7iro7s twenty-one ciays of tltv ciatc tlgi,5 urder is filed. All dcietgcf,y»ts slz.ill aital:c: their mUt.ioiss 1ttrl waivet's ,joiastly in a sittglc picttding. All ptaitAtiffs sliall make thcir anUtioris and Waiver:4 jointly in a sittgle. I31e,xding. A brief in.0p13ositloll Sh:lll IX' pGi7llittCd c)tl any inotions. For the simie t" solts 11:; «utlincd aMOve in regards to pe.nortal jurisdiLtit}n, nt7 reply to tltc nppc^.siticttt sha11 be pcre•mitted. Aezy party reyu4stizag a hearing on tilese i ssues .sball request it by a sC;-ptLrat4 tzlotiol). 'J°ycoii and Ittslabin.5 & hlvcrs It.tli.i, 1xttlt Ita[ian coxrara.tinras, W,C asked to srarci,izc:rtily ackfress the appIic,3hility of the Hague ('tyi'vetttiott-1,1`'tu the service of process in this case. DiSccavery Shall Resume The t catart prc vauttqy 5taye,ci alisccflvery until it ruled ctn ihc isstu;s of the 11>aztm selection clause aiacd coazYxty. 1-lavirtgdt^neso, the stay is navv lit'lcA. Discovery shall resutrie. [tespnttses tca discWvery requests made before j:hc stay arc due twetty-ojxe days frotn this order. The C;Oatrt pseviousiy tiftee# the 4yay n.ti to Persotzaal,jtarisdietiott alld suflicicnr,y oi`Iaroce inaluiries. Ift tltat orcler the Court quoted t;rat9mer in ordiring pna-tio:t t. C1t~ any motions to compel discovery or requc,ts for protective orders wrtliin tu+enty-utts: days or else accept the ctatus qut,; "Det him now slacalc, or eisc hcrcat$er for ever hold his neac:a:."O The Court wislies (c) extend that ph,iloscaphy tp all ot9tcr discovery requests. Lst the Iaartics' Joint Report an Discovery , it appenrs that 1}clthCr sYIIC is happy with discovery. The C[1[Yi't in stayinf; disCUvery requested the paYY3et; to make any Illotio3iS they 17ad sooner r31ller than Irater. It is now later. The lgartics have had a 3ntanth.sittcti the stay was impt^^ti and no reqttcsts ha.ve bneon made. Havi,ig ai,yp[e aiotice, tlic Court orders tltat all motions to carnpef or rcqracsts i°or c.'..onvention on tire Serviec Abroad nfJueiicial rmd tsxtra-Judiciat Ncuntents in Civif 3nct Gommcrciai Ivt,attcrs. Nov. 15, 1965. 28 U.S.C.A. APlx:iactix foitsiwinb i:cd.Civ.lt. 4, 20 t1.4_T. I.L.M. 1334. 361, 3'_I.A.S. A2o, 6638. 658 iJ.Pt.7'.S. 163, 16; 3^0 "Ordcr rOr the SolenatuZation of Matrinwety,° The t3r,c>k ofConmaon Prayer (c. 1969) 364. 71 of 78 Appx. 119 FEB-18-2009 10:12A"t From: ID:GRAYDiJhi iEnD Page'071 R=93% 02 3 1812009 aev 10e17 Fax wur^ruro protective orders Ut7 all issues other than per4oilal ,juri5dietic211 and stifficiCt1Gy of j7rC'tCesS be IT)a[It; within fotartu;n days. Conclusion l:^rre:n though it is ctc;s;iduiiy ttttustxai for a couat (rf 113c Sivtc of t:litics to apply dt5lia0 law to a dispute beN'4Ln t)I.lrn, h'loritla, I)elawarc, attci Italian corporations, it appears the C:ocarE must da W. 'rl1e Cesurt also I^c!s tttca°e are practical, c;ctanoznical considerations in kc opit1g, this case in Ullic^. Thc C'otirt is «:.ell aware of'llae dit7sculties in applying foreign 1aw asYd having as defendants parties oit di.stanE shores. The issue-s of having witncss<.:s and evidence far fmm the coaarthause7t7d the lnnguage barrrier stati(fing betvrCCn them and the Court = also apparent. 13ut other parties kzre oti thesc; :;hores, alatig with relGS,ant wittacs^.ses and evidcnce: And recall the plairttifi:4 allege that not only did the American deFendaait.s wrong thc;m, they caused the Italian cleCendanc% to do likewise. Tl3at. if druti, w®uld make tliis Couxt a tBatural forum. Enquip could pursuc its claims in Italy. But.Itobbin; & Myers and {7fatrciler nlight dtnt be subject tt) personal juri„ti,diction there. And as they auct Robbins & Myers Jtttlia did not sigia the contract being 4lisputed., IdnqYiip miellit not be able tr'' nssert the iiaizm- now lefifre this CUurt ifr an Itatiatz trib►ui:d. `°There is a strong policy tavoring the litigation ofrelatod claissts in the same tribunal,"391 II' .L,nyuip split t2p its Iawsuit and litigated bottt in Italy and /Lnzerica, that Svou3d be no better with the•. vsastei=eul chtplicatiuzi oI'res troublesoine possibilitics safinconsistcnt Qt° even isicamv;atibic rulin&i by the dift'^rc^nt oautts. 'I'hus it is bettcr that all thesc claims rernaitt tYnitcd. '11t.e pareatt csf Robbins & Myers is Isased in Grc:ene Caaanty. It and its subsidiaries art-, ttse only del%ndan.ts. Cix-oene County rttay 17ot be t194 j"4 ff,yfirclhtnat ii.ssrat.°. v. f3intkff. (C.A.2, 1969). 393 F.2d 614, 6E9. Senaksu Nrndn v C..SX C.arp, (S.1).N.Y. 1987), 057 F'.Supp. 1210 (tr;:n43'i.^ts'ing casc to Westcii) Llis-trict of E'ejul.sy!<•ania vrlacl-e sitnilar i,sues were Exing liteg:itc;J nvtwithstsendint;;t fiarurn selectioft clatise chrxtsing New York). 72 of 78 .Appx. 120 FE5-18-20k19 10:12flM Fr om: ID: G2A1'tKJN tiE%3 Page c®7Z R=93% 02/L8/2009 wsD 20018 FAX w(viasuia idcai place to Iitib:ito. l.iM ihcra is tio idcai place to litigatc:. Litigation nntst always be a burt$cti to tlac pa•ties for "Iativ-Suits cottsumc: time, and Ytlaulcy, and re."t, asyct frse»ds.`392 }.itot "it is part of ttie price wlyich ntay properly be denianded of those who extensively engage in fomign tsade,,'a93't`fuis the (;ourt says to the I1tlgiunts: LeVs ci(a it.}94 ^vz Gcryrbc Piarbert, J1c.^u6s Pn►dentuln (f651), rcprinted in Tlte 6E7gIish Pt7Lrns uf Appx. 121 FEt3-18-2W9 10:12A('t From: ID:GRA1'i]ON HEEO Page:073 R=93% VJur4sruro OZlt812009 WF-p 10:18 FAx Syllabus by the Court A ;7totin37 ttY tfiSm15s for fiilltlrL to sti.ltC a L'1(i1371 ttpEDfl wlltci7 relief 1;4iY1 IX'. granted if, ct3usidcrilig osgly ftrc allegations made in tite cornplaint anci assuntittt; t3lciis tta he tt-tre, thr-rc ,trc no set of ti3c.ts which could supZx)rt tiic counts charged in the coxgiplaint. '^. When a party alleges the law of a forcigtt ttiation coiitrcz3w a case, thc party making the allegat1CS►Y Bl1UaL plead aitid prove the foreign law as if it were ;Y qClestion of fact. 3. A'hzr9 an. Ohio c{)tirt applieS }.hG law of a Ibreign nataotl, the i°oreigtt law is prc:swtlci to be ie3cntical to the law or this siate and it is the obligation of the party arguing foreign law to sltow the `outrt o[lierwise. =1< A coctrt is not oblig:itccl to juclicia.lly tint-icc the stattttes, cu,uc:law, or tr<:ataeg of fars;ign nations. Under t:iv.It. 44.1, a s;auxt naay infcartn itwlf of the laws of a foreign nxtiota throue-h its own research and is nut crbli gatcd t.ct rely solely on the suhrnissinns of tilt; parties. 6. Statements on 17orcigrx law made by a party's coujisel are inherLn€lv bi uRiacccptat)ic evidence oii the forcigu la-ar. 7. A. choice o£ iaw provision in a contract is presumed to adopt ttnly the sizbstantive a.^^yects of a jurisdiction's laws izy, the absence of explicit language also azioptinr the rroc ecftiral aspects. K; A 1°orcign jurisdiction's laws on the cQnilict of laws and forum sElecjiun arc pxc.suuied to be procadw -a1 and notsctbstantive. 9. R. foj-um selection clause is an aspect of prescec3ura.i ratller than substantive EaNv and will bc. int:erptr-ted uttdar the law of the fotum, notwithstanding a choic4 oi' ldw ProvisiQtt in a contt-act. 10. A forunt selcctioii clausc is piima fac;ic v.tlid. ?4of78 t'^-ppx. 122 ID: G?RYDON iEAt} Pa 9e : 074 R=93y F'EB-1B-2009 10:12Ah7 Fr Qrtr: 02/18/2444 Wsn 1o:19 PAx I^j'vr2eva0 11. A fcsrua-n selee;ti,lz claiise is prLstimec} to bc nott-cxclusive in the zzbscrbce of expiieit 3anguatte anakinl; ttic fos-tian scl4ctivi exclu;iveo 12. Z:.,tnguage in a contanct declaring a court is "Cempet.ent" to lZear a dispute merely confers jurisdiutian ost illc spu:iiaul court in the absence or lariguage rykiking it the exclu5imC fctrum fegr litig7tio1L 13. Wticn partics raise defenses that challenge the cotart's ability to lacar the cbr:e---siscY► as tlie court lacks persoizal jurisdiction over thcnY, ttuil scrvice oi' process was dtlectivc, or that the l.ong-arnn statute (R,C. I335.11) do::s not apply-the crnirt may order them to assert or waive those dciorsscy. 75 of 78 Appx. 123 FEB-18-2009 10:12RM From: ID: GRAYtXlhl HEA7 Paee e®75 R=93y 02/L$/2409 WED i0:18 FAX ^i-der of the Court '1'iic Court makea the following orders: I. Thc naoticati of defendant Robbins & Myco:S, iaiL., to dismiss 14ar failure to stale a a;Iutm upnn which relief Calt lie" grailted is DI:N1I'•.:)3. 2. °I he plalntat&moticaaa foTilfclgcncalt on the piciid,nt;s is GXt.t1.NTED. 3. '7'17G piaintiffs' t2lcstion to strike dei'c:na3aan& defeaLses on imllrnper fcarttni aiacl coinity is Ci1tr1:NTED. 4. The fourth defense of defetidant Robbins & MI"yers, Juc., asas+criirig lhe 00rum s-eIes:tion ci{aatse mandates this ease be tried in Vertieey Italy, is S'l'1tICK.l^fii. "1'iw fourth defense of c3s:f::nciant Pfaudier, Inc., as~;ertutg the foruttl setectitai7 dause auand.ates t:Iais case be tried in Venice, Italy, is STRICKLN. ^. "1'he fourth defeaise of defesadant ltobbiais & Myers Italia, S.r.i., ; ►4xc.^atzng I:he forum selectioat clause matidate.s this case be triccl isl Vcnic:.e, Italy, is g1"CtiCKLN. The fourtIt defense of dafcnt3fu,t Tycon TLchnogim, S.r.i., uscrtint; the S`cartam selection clause fna.udates tltas case itc: tried in Venice, Italy, is STRIC>Kf:N< 8.. 'I'he sixttl defen5e of dei-endant Robhins & Mvers, Inc., asserting cc3mity is STRICKJ^N. ^. The sixth dcfcttse of dcicxadant I}fstidlez, itac., ;assc.ttdrtt; couiity is S'1'R1C;K13-N. 1(t. The sixth dcli;aasc: of dcfcrxiaaxt Robbins & Myc•.,-s Italia, S.r.l., asserting comity is S'1'It1CK Elal. 11. "t'be sixth defense of defendant Tycon 'l°cchnogIass, :+.^•.1., assGC^tin.g comity is S'I'It.ICK:EN. 12. The motion ofdefendant,s forluclgaiLnt aia tia,c pfcadings is 1.31-;NICD. 76 of 78 Appx. 124 ID: GRA`lDOh! HEAD Pa ge : 07f R=93y FEH-1$ -i'_009 10 :13A9 Fr o tn : 02/18/2049 9rED 10:18 PaX QtD77/078 1.3; Wittiiii twenty-one days. plaintiff I;nauip Techntflogic;a (iroup, Itie., and defelldant Tycon '1`cchn«glass, S.r.l., s3r;zi1 file a JUJN"1' ItL.IlOltT oii the 1?usiness altey e:>nducted in the State of Ohio during the time l:quip 43nd it.s predcccssors represented Tycata and its predecessors. 1?i. Withln twt`nty-4,fte days, all dCfcudafYts shall in a single pleadinl; ASSER'I' by appropriate motions their cicfenscs on p4:.rsqatrl jurisdiction, foricrn rron cnrijicPniapty:s, and regarding 1t.L. 13.1S.11, or else l.iie a waiver of those dcfcnses. 15: Plaintiffs MAY t]IKIt(: motions to (ji4p(lse of the dl:fctHSe$ O;) personal ]'urisdiCtioYL fiorurn rrvn caarruenxens, ajid regarding R.C. 1335.11, but shall do so wiihin twenty- cine days. 16. WithFn twenty-otie days, all wctntera;Iaim deft;ztdaits shall in a single pleading A.SSLiR'1` by appropriate rrecations their defewes that this C'oiart la&4 personal jut'isdiction over t3aent or file a waivc:r of those dei'cytws. 17. Defendants muntercl:tinaing iv1AX znakc ntotiois3 to dispose o!' tlto personal j2ari.s^.#ictioat dofc:.stses Iaut shaJl do so within twenty-one days. 18. Bric.fs in olspusiti sevesttetsn nl`tiyis order MAY be filed btat ttn replies to thosc briel's it, opposition may be tiied. 19. '1'he lintitatioto coiztaizroc;d in thC Jocal r[ile5 on the nunabcr of pages in a brief }& WA1Vl:.17 for filings inadu iuader parts CcrLn°tcLn, !zl'ic„n, sixteeza. aEid seventuYn of this ords;r---isut partiCs an auivised not to abus^ thai w:dver. 20. Witilin twcnty-one ciays, all clefendants shall in a siiyglc plcadi.trg ASSERT by approptiatc fnol:ions their dcfen.w-1 that scrvicL of prcaccss was insu33ic'tcnt-wit.h 77 of 78 Appx. 125 FEB-18-2009 10:13Rh1 From: ID:G?AYl?OV HEAD Page:077 R=93r 02/18/2009 wHp 1q:29 FAX 00781078 j7acticui;tr n;lcrcnct; tcs the applicability of the I Ta6uc Ccnvc;rntic^ar--car fllc awaiv^,,r of those dcli:nse.s. 71. I'laiittiffs; MAY tt7al'<.c inotinn% tc' do scs witliiit ttvcszty-oa}c dtty5. 22. 33riifs in cyPpcr:ition to the ntutiorra ma.de under pirt ci ;htceli of tttis ardc,^r MAY be filed lyut tio replies tc) thosL brpci`s in Opposition may be filed. 23. t1.jay party rc:c?ucsling a ft4caring on the issues of persnnal jurisdictiun, f`yrr ronvenien.s, R.C. 1335.11. or sufrCiency of process shall requc;s[ it by SRI'rl.IiA'1'3; t72atian;cpart fiutn titeirplcadings on titese yt.tcstioias. 24. !.'12G stay UrdiscUVCry JR)pd}SCCI in the CoUrt 's order nfJartttary 5, 2009, is 25. Discovery shall RFSUh1Z. 26. Responses to discovery rcquc:st:, nlade txfore the stay was imposeci are due TWENTY-ONE days from date ofth4 f~iling of this order. 27. All niatiarts to cnnilxl jurisdictiraq or stifficicncy stf'pxoc.css tur:; due r(3t.1R:'I');l~N days fioni tlxc c3atc ai'the filing of this ordGr. 21, 8. Parties are Itl;MiNDi:3'3 to observe thc Ivcal rull;s on citing unpubli:;ltctl Gascs anJ the Cnurt`s prinr rtrcla:r about citing to Si>re;ign Iegrtd materials. Ti is so ordered. DATE: ^^ r?Z J? t^? ^ _ a Judge Ste A. ^Uc^lavet• u:< Jc>hn 13, f:'inney,Kar;t A. Czanik, & Itobizl 1). Ryaci, via fax: 513-651-J$3 G I-Z-s3ie W. Jacobs &Matthcw E. t,iehsnn, -6a fax: 216-566-5800 Joseph M. Rigot, via fax: 404-541-2905 78 ci'7T; Appx. 126 FEB-18-2009 10c 13AM From; ZD: G2AYbON FEAD Paee: @?8 R=93 : ORDER DENY. .iNG DEFENDAN'TS' MOTION TO DISMISS OF GREENE COUNTY COITWT OF COMMON PLEAS Entered on Apri123, 2009 Appx. 127 O4124/2009 FRI 15:0$ Ffl% ZC391462 t e;•^ 7 23:E t 1 '2 3 F,(1 II4 'T'"1h.^ C,OlIl^`;1' OFCU?VI.lYIf)N Fil[•.AS'. OV GREENis COi1NTYt 01410, C'IV[I., I)['4'1S7C)N L:I^t1lt.trJ' 7-I:.C.'I•iNt")I,t')till-:^ ) C3l2Q[JI', InC.,, .11jt,1g`- S(L`(7I1C'>1T A. WSlli3vtiC 1'laiiatit'i; ) Magistrate (aet3r€?c 3. DZc:y31cy1{1ti ^^c r:saps ) t `wse No, 2()C1K-C:;V-1. 276 ) S.t'J., ot rtiitr._ !)cfciac3,cnts, (_)iiL3LiZllJsNY1N C..r.)!_N._}'A lZ I' A N1) vMtas } tzl^AN„I'JN(i IN PAiL 1II1? 'I`It1ft^';{L 3)r;T^}.;1Vt-) .'^N l^i ROBERT W. N,1Jr)1•:;L. ct tdizt, ) "1"t) 1:)1`jk4IS.S ON C:ili.(.)r.l?I.}^ C?1? C.;OGrttexclai ni I'T^;IR^( Nr A1,,.I1 i3:M?.i C'Jt)Ivv, llcf'cnsjunt:-,, I?!Jlt[iM NO:} (70NVi.,I^17:N5^ I^Ni) J:.C;.:. 1:I35:11- i3 t3 d QA _ITC `i-I2+dE_lLOG1L-i;S C'.QR 1:' C)RA' 1'1C.)IV, et alia, )!Lt)1;1.Z New I'txa•tX Ca ) Lt12 CC i'C{,! S ))1 } I)c,fl;.iitirarYts. (irc^, i Appx. 128 APR-24-2009 04:04PM From: ID.CaRRYDUN HERD Page:039 :=93: 4412412909 BaT 15:0$ HAY 1690Q1062 1111 }Nh/c tuegathuycx3 hmc; UTOhwr in tltc ;;iglt.t of Mecnd oG't17e.bcotittitW of'tlyr5 casvd.h^r Ot3';4ga (t(` the „(YAttt.:-to diWosc• of a mc>tirtntci s.listxliss tlu' cisl'onr_iaiits [ic;t:,tu t thcCi7ttrt 1ttcl jsex satttz{ jttri5^3i^Eit7t^ Ysvcr lhet^i, (}rc;t.tte f"ot.itzty is a itt,•ustn i3ot3 c:ottvorlietl,., ^ttici I:wc4ztt;;^Oi'' i ^3`•.JI. Tlic Wot°t.d C:ot>zcs to Xctiin. Agf$im ^ ;-,i t'I,^= , Thiti cmc ttrtws ctt.;t or wc: hwilltictaWtt in l1zt; [yn;;ino,-^ reluti ctist Cymt of wl,ich ;tt•e cornplcx, and a tis.sct'i4)t'son ct(' the ecfuipmitit macic isy iht:: 11tt;i;ttl cotilptitly fully sct (tut in a fn•ttxrot`tiet't7t ilie ctAlrt.' 'l•1tc Wut-t wiil distill that aicot.m Ilci'C., sx^^,3,g 'flt^; . ,_^pwmt'iffis tlte sttFc::; rc.}^te^^tttttt.tvr. 'tyCf14'licltttt^it>Z^tc^('irtit1F). £t is nw'tIr.c b^, P\t>heft W, aztci ,lcf7:rc.yL. Naidc?, who own Etscfi,li)?. (3tt7tsct i.^t.hc.("at1"e'r o9"Jcl't;vc.:y,) 'i'{rcY were odgit;ttlly Pit.tintiff; bttt have droppcdfltcirc•-lainzs and rci77aitt as countertuktittt dctlatdatat5.2 Claims ttttclct tl,e IArittct7 cctrttz I^Itz'rijtiff tzlc^t^L ^}jitlt ;^tr•^-c;ttt1 lttrt 4lctitt7ti. ' MK; Ile EfeftWant;;ttrc:tlae 9aalittn rrm4ulitYuc.tatre1`, {'yutttt "I'c.cftttt>gfttss, S,r.i.; it4 tstirc.ilt i; by ftohbitls & M'Yca s, Z'f:attdtc+ry (An "YaW i, ^x smic,tzi ^t rcwNmOWliM limii;tlo ttp ltw,liztn t hletau iatr<3^at,fiind (. )stltt ttit Dete17d:1n1 )tubl:rin ^. PA)^s^r .[ttc.':4 ^fit)titlit toDis]IMrs fiti' l"tsittsra 11) Stttte A C'Ittim ;tttd 1'f;eiitiitle tst;tl 1)z.t^.ttd;aut^' Motsotts !'ua.lue3gmcnt on tlte}xlcaillrt^soia rtt^. tssates att'tlnFx>rwn tisrk;Ctitstt t1a^^.;v ,atcf Ytctcits( ^ tsf'f:'^^irtit}; nttd (hderin4;Stta Spotstc[tstst (I) A!«iis! 1Zqwri Itc.iAted att t'ttrtic>' Bttsmi.ss wi,Nili,ls sWtr tnd (;?} P toic:x Atisvrt (sr WtdaE• L.c.rtt4in i)efenvo,";,("Forua) Szzlcviitst tlt'^iej' }.,1i1eittcls, t", 2007, 2009 t1at,8 t;3 155, 3'lio bet tiiui tfsa'N>aisi,^Es am nct t7s`ittt;ittgclaint:, atiy lutjgcs sm,1 r.nviiit ost;y as c•tsuntcrc:ltaim i9s:('ottsitttrt;, w•rss clatitieti 14 LLe cirut'i wa st.t ltt; t&L 11e1.d Apt !t, NlUI „tpit 13te cstp;icstt t>tt t!u Cttsrt's trt•tiins 6 ts 15eean udjtt,;titD;ts!c:ureinvy. fli^ Gottrt w,ta tltti;rtrlcd& thm AlSrU ItWQ tlzesc am stttrtntexiite 1lsald;ng cot3tpanii-s which xtund bwtaws;ctr tlrc. sattistrsic {3 ry Appx. 129 flP62-24-2009 04: 04PM Pr om: ID: CaRAYDCIN HEAD Pa 9e :@40 R=93 % 04/24/2009 k.?RI lTO Pa9X Bat.N6z limili3a_i',tlizlity comtsnsty.`r1 Robbins ^t':. Myers is }ae<3iicitz.>rtorc.e3 in Bc: 1'httcllor in 1^oiiacst^vr. Nc;,w York; and "l'yct7lt cc:tmpayty will here:iilter bo c,xtlad `'it:2}4" lY's.c>ti ttrut f'1utidic.t' ii t tttlIZtercf:zitiydcf'etzcl l^x' f:'ittt!'i Ort.l^>.rr>t.'( llre s't Lti.cttc,?s I3t ;lr:(c-Irr;sa'r;rt.l 115 i l.n thuiY a nswt;rs, ta)f tlte defirtz6nf5 smc'.rwci tlse b;zil"pl;.rti tiz~i<:ztse. of l;zt:ft of l7o'soral jttr•iscfictirsrz. They a3si> tr±;scz'f'ed t3zztl C;reet!e (:ottrzty was tzn iuix7nvetlii'nt fctrttrrz trr,tl tlt.^tt tl7c tial4^ti 1-c.Pr;:ast7t t4^t^z'ditl^ ctlnzily tul these defbnsc.s by to lvtzivc tYtcir Persvntil .jit2`isdic6ota di:ICZases }ri.tt rtset'vr; thtsmc' cu7 MIttz mii3 R.C. 1.i ?5,11. `tYCcru and lwlin inrir,t on ali torc;. Pct•sorYal Jttr'is(lidtiotz 13awi<:3 ;'jb; '3le coi•nmv i-'irlk,^'t^trz;e21> 's?^'rrrr crr' f^"irl^ ;y z^ttci ,^scx^ti ^t^c t^al l^ralttslt'lf. N t'tiYZtln^ c}ii^erw ttfr sta^rlc s of l,7iro str.rclmts' casebooks Sbr tlzeirlit•:>t-Yc,,,r civiE ps•ocodt.rrc=c•i;tssc:., "` ;117; 'l'lyv f;z2•mel, zjljrroavticss ofint:etpreGitsg ,ltrzFscli4tiorz, vvNc-la ili :;<>i^l",instiflscc; 111c me;v aMs tzo csalzrt i.lz wltic)t a wronged pzlrly could sCCk rciiel;" b4zs 1--c4i3 t•t;lr.txCci ^zcatly. (^i7ez: I r ivl5 ivca}rlrhur W tltt cl tvttrnnn l.,mn4t, 50, titutll, atlaa `37artq rn tt,tly tngIhittrt Yott Nccil fcr liufm to t.:iv t,i Dqlcc; 11tt (:>,ti t:ci. 2063) 2$9::jrid .>S'.^IdC C.a)li le, woYklrti'^ dxlct i,ivirtg 11„1} (2008) ?4625'7. tt1So "I:intiti>tf .iabilrtV C!?i1Fi) 07v," t'lft^l ^[Ell.iV'd^ tt?(.iSir7,tY3LJtV11l..^^1 IItl1.I^lCt ^r4r}3i1^^'.,.^I^III^^iilI}•. (W4t :304"l'.tiiG41 A1}P tl ?(}{lqi:.!7d AmiClfl: Y resExt22 ai^itj( fl!'g-24-2009 04.05PM Fram: ILt : GF;AYDON HEAD F'a s e.041, q3 % Ap,Y. ^ ^^ 04t24t2009 FRI 15;03 PA77s E0d21462 t1):)n Lt fii2te, a ct7rlaCtYtttic>n could alaly be :,uCCi ill tlte .jtlvt"'dictiCi1 which ii7cc)rpc>rt91:f,"ti it.`, •)'1),j.z rtr1C. was long ,tp(^ has id tllc; °tTttind0tintt o{' i,iri di(.liirti is physic,<1l ptt13ut whil Pi,t!?i3x(y catii l?i. itnp(? cti fr,tt',tsa^^ ci^tzcit.t(tc,d ^?uh;icit, a jttt`i;cfuaia3n'S1?tttiiot'S ?N-hic;1Y have c et t^ Wit.hin tltcrty,"' in gE.nr.r tltt•c." i"iat e.x:.znip(c., ltM+itig azl ,;g,;pt -wititin a ittriseEicauan cati sulzjtc4^ ;ic(tt3?1?itrty ti7 jtu'i^clicl:i^tt tttc;-,s.', Ohio crr«I Nt:rwOatal,I1.11-is'ttictrnn MfOhii1's r" st.attitc. R.C. 2307.:38" ccr:7ft rs ,jtii'isc9i4,tion in thr c^^ur t;^ ui:7c^is i2tt17c)t;G 11'at?stzctitlg (tily 1hu4ila<;5S ill t12c`. St€tt4"'" (11T(^ "^C^t?ilfi'i.rc!i#1y^. i7l #c) g(•()ci`; ;it slV 4 ill tltis titte..":o "i'lic. ("ivil ]2ttlcs do t1ic s'i!m." This is ctsiirely proper s,tystht: Itc:sta1ertet'tt; °'( l) A statz-, has power t Siztkilvitit 1`tsl?w to C'LitiScU t1f action af'isi12i; lfit)Zl] tlli:, business ticx9lC ia tl'tc .4ttiw, (2) A 5t.7tt; has 1?o?v1~r to exercise j tlicialjttt'i:;(lictiot} ttti>t:r a ti?reign cttt'i?ot'aiicsn M7.iEaz dc?e,,busiricss, in thc-statc< with t-c.spe.ct to c,:iiiws of tti;ii(yn tbts+, do ni7t,.irisc €t^oit1 1Jicl?trsiiio;;s done in -- thestato if tltis;yiaSitls.as is :itYCotit"lt9u(J(t sz411ti sC1b5ti1)Tt.11:a) as to tl'1i1kC-`, it FCds(JllliiE)iC tilt" the Stiit'L', to [Xea'C'iSt;t SuC.h JLti'3Sd3Cal{111 "" rr 1;; Irt rrr;it,rr3 t,iclf^rautt l), 15 1,(.:;ty. rtGE),(sttS (2`lit. 8,111) (Iiruntar )cttc:rscut svas stieil in Vr*girtla aN'(h {:'iv.IZ. 4.3(A)(1"), Rc3ttt4cittti i)t stf'f'r7r{licti; Si:cUvtt 47, 4 Appx. 131 APR-24-2009 04: 05Ph1 Fr om e ID: GRAYDQN NEAD Pa pe : 04C P=93f 0a/24/2909 FRz 15:09 Fax 110431062 ;'(t7; The C.)1)ii7 W)itc: C'c)uti d'1rct;ts ct7tir(k f.o tisc. ',i tv'n-,tCp t>rucc:,-, toi' slc ternlittittg ii t'Ircyf-Lave jtu.iS(licl'it,n47it tho5c t'c.Sida1# c;tlttiidc 11)k g sit)tc`s 'ic>}tt,,-nirnl'~ttalutt ;;tit(E the applicable (.'ieii Itufc ci)t)fl^)^ I>ctst>tt.tl jtt)is^it^tia,i, iint4 if st'3; (2) Wtl7a t3mi)iii)t;,jttiisiliaoil wya• tatc: stzitutc aiorctlc would dcprivc t}it: (It;9'cnciaztt, c}f the right (<) dtlc° ltii•oi:ess'c,i'Itztia htir:4uant to f:flcFztttttcanth An)c:)tdix)ei7t."7' Thc: sottthesi) 1:7istrict of`tal7it, :ays courkF Wci:};ftint; whetl,t r l,e{•sotmi jul'iscli C;(1il:;i<(GP tI]C 11L1117I)tn,, f)at7.irep 7E1(1 c)11";11t}i of it.5 COi'!t€IL`ifi; wl1Ctj1Ct" the Ci1t4S4t'1{ i.iSaio(i ttii:3c:4 0`t7!'i) ti'.f?;ie cd'79)1$:LN:, t:l1C i11tC:tX?:^l in tllt.'^ 1110) Th4% "4{7i1SE7GCltlt711i1l t4'ri7Gf7Sibt3C" 1J.i whNMot' a C'ItSrL'.l1Cj'r.711f might PC;:I$O)li3b1y have been exl7ecizxl t{7 bc sued in i.he fortiit3 ^tsit:.`s (•I'hiS i4o;tly etle re.^.):Nt)t1. whwFc.clera.I cat3its sittitjl; ii-, V4,tutsylvan%,a could hatve cfi5mNSC;cI suits filed rigtiitut (it)ta t.litti Satan.") These principles hinre bcirT applied not merely to Cizt7.tpaixitr, but itujivitdtrz{s-as Nvitfi the court that finit)ci Iti.itgc; Starr was S?.IIIiCCt to gci3t'f:'tl jurisdiction in Nf'%v Y(,lTk I>Cc`,:)st;;i« t)( j*7tS C:Yt"^itvtVC coi).tilc•ta witll the I:.iY1p)Pi?, ""'1Fit'e (lespii.c his bc;iitg, a rc:sidet;t of 1 ng lttucf.'; Iari:,SCIiC'tic3r! f1vLr 117e !)eftnc.fcrrats 1-A.'rcr ,"; I 1 ) '1'yt.^.tztt says tt)cd't i.^ "rtc.7 ,tJle;?attiti fh;tt I I J has an t^* tlocrit illf71tio^ *""3L.tt llalr,m c.tmpitrics i)me btfen Nii)cl tcy bQtltc age^tltw t>f t,llx;ii• strl)4idiat•icS, tlttla i7ringittg trr^7rlskL^ r (hiLtlr`eilttit>» (1':W}. rt} (7tiiptiP,3d 23, 2=116, 638 !+l,ii.2d t41, cit)!)f (.1 S. fijx'ltrt (.'rmttrttttticzri;rn).^ rid, k's 1ttc: (19993, (s!i ()hitt St.3ci Ifi;, 183484, 624 }`t.l::M It1d$, Ses h•fctDt` (.'or20'rzt:tW•.S. 1rta n AM nrlrrtrrc7l t"`urlt. (5;.(;):(:111iU 1971), 335 t'`.Sun1I 912, 97:3074, 66 (>l1,2ti 275, sitirig "tjkirrr,,5i t!s<';nrrtnv 13iritr C'v. (( .A.h, 1965{ 343 1:2t£ 197. {.;i: f.ildjirLc! 51, !'uudifr) titi fs'plz+rr Gm•a ,S:f, ;(.:.fi.! 1, 20174). 5St} f.3ti12 1{) {i7tanxlif't's ^-hllill t])ti5t arSC 001. c1f d3(iti&111 t`S c.imfiic"tT titi`itli tflC iirrqMj. Altrlsu tt'1 Cily- Bctr7G v) ca?r.e, i 78 (Mio 1p343d 381 20d)M}hiir- t; I J, `a88 'd t;.2cf S'?, jf f(i, uiiittg f3rr:'t r:'F A'irfk { `rtrp. u f trili•o,'it: (198S), 471 (),-S, q(.i,x, 4z4, lOS S.("i.'?17d, $5t!'t9 :?ti 5)9 Appx. 132 APR -P4 -2009 04 = 05PM ; • r o m : I17 : (aRA'Y[7DN HERQ Pa a e : (343 R =93 % 44124l2409 FRx 15! 10 PAX ZC44i462 f^^t'cit;rr crrta:€^ il's,;uiy5idiz)iWs arc 11Ict,c ^i .l^:at t.mcr^ts c71`111cir pazcil1s; 3t.lrkciic°tit)ai over t:1n^ -.-,u17;;idt i1i21 Mot€7er way <>i' lt7€.€tat,ti rtt tlzist;rttr,rpvise t9iuzirY o1"jttE`; tiicfit:tll pt-csGtsts it eli 171 tlic t.lci. ttdttttr>" own lirief'.k: All ^i<:f^.ttc3,tttls i.t.) 1llc:it. 1nt7li<31; 9bf`1ta43epixt:lf rttt tlli €^Icbtdi,t^^; sotight ti7 li^tv^. tJ;;e. ii5rum 'geltctinn ciat:s5c icx tlic c:orttrac;t bc°twet..n E."Ilqitip t)nd 'i'yycota :113ply tta t17t,^)t3 erleta though only Tycott sigtlc}d tltL c.c,i^tra^t." A a•:cttie- f.hq c;i{t'.et spoke ot' how "closely tk3Gtted" elifiticti c part:.nt.. ;1j13; ,litri;;ciictictn over l.tislybitls & Mye.rs is ti3e. cleat'c:4t.; h is; i11C0rl.x0l•R1ccl uncler tlit-= It1t^^s ci6'tl^is ;tt:;at:e,:nci has it;; principal plt;cc of tyttsi^iess in titr.rnc. County, €1i;Wtcfl4i', thoug€', a larit3.^^ratc c:cirporation, has an <,get7[ 0 ix) 3is st;atL fot• ilIC se:l-Vic:t' c)f;VOr:.c:ss, '1'l7tt.^ hctt).z. iit cicit°.ti ticit to cotit,,:st jtrt•i.,d ict i cin, (1141 More uncertain t3ri:rc the !• ^.1I Ituliitn c^^r}^orst:it.^t], a^iu)its it sold equipment in tl^i>; ni<)f4, bjn c.€a%lztstlfc r.tlttc t)i' it;s^alrs was tmW about 12,(30() Curo, in ti°!c lttnt two yrcars l;it>tlt)i€7 r(^tsr"cnte.c( it. li not4s ti'rrrc iti `na allcraticiry thtiti lit;J has ali c7#a°tcr?, cnt€a€oyee, al,,raaf, tuEcircss, hank 4tceoGnit or ;tny othet €^l <^s^ t^t cirt Ohio, and ( nevct•:j has tyc:cn r(:gi5tQr(;d to c€ohusixlesw itz tht^;St.atc"°'1'4ttlsits cot)t.,tcts, 5ayti •T•ycatt, wx:r(: 'c10 111i1limu.5' 16•pttr};U;;c:-^ t}i'trpplying R.C. 1135.1 1 tt) But both that wtatt1t0. 0nd Lt,C, '?..'t {)7;382 niight mt:l(e i(. sul)je.t:t to;;ttit ltc.rt;.",° T^^,:^ t r^r^i;d! /'rcl.li;c;titrP f.O 11 (l3fi; hrc; (`+,C).N,Y. 1i)87); 664 €,.tiil€5p, '7U^t, ?Ui-7(1kt, w ii^g i t^rrtrr^rar.^r ,^; 1(iT1rlr hJr^rtt^ fitltar^ttir^t , 1'nc. (1967),tt? N_1`.7d 533, 331. ;;?3,i3 N 5' .S,ZtI rt i, 227 N.13.2c1;5 J Stt tis< ,64( `A ArtrTiinll. 4i4lrses, S.A. s^. le'a^lh rtri}'Ftr vJ^F,`rr^lar7el, Z,tt,C a^^C (1965), 11 ?).1`,:Ul 1i7, ^?56 3l.Y.S-2ri 129, 204 N k,?tl .i20. Srrnl.rc lrz7•r>/rr. Lfr1. sr. 1rt7-rtfu Motnt (:n. (5 i)?V.Y 1{)72), 55 f li.D. 719, 52$ `iCtt ,iltii) !'ttlntrr r ti. A`.srq;irri (y,l_) N Y.1+)92) 793F•Stit)p, 1182, i#fi7 ttaspy[ig€d isfrisrs.*,LSnetri(Zttt( tpiltst falqti;3 Is,.tx.t(an ,tt1i1 ltt.'r iaf)c.l. ^ 6 Appx. 133 A!'R-24-2009 04:05PM From: IDt GRAYDON HEAD Page . ®44 R=93 : m _ 04f24f2009 FRI 15: i0 Fa:s ^0^51^5Z '1.11C: 00tz,•t s1sO wr<1tC- „2't.r t'claliilnslcip o3:1iobbin4 & N9Ytr:, itali lcit4tf Eti2n(4tcts, it b"Is iil (hi!is(,3t.L itrGIlflctti,itr,>„5 ^'^(it^j 'Ifte, citCn`t rriil ti^wt ilart^it^^.'1'y'scia^'; l^Lr^izrta) ji.ri tlicaic^t7 cJ.risez^, tll^J) tttt'tt tc^ t11t7sc (?(71J,C'l'.I'I?t1S^ l(^Siiil. .:Iarisdic.tion OvcY.><°Tycort ;l j^i'nn 7i^c°lzrmhrl^.r.r.w and (.)l7it> ,'Ijl7-}^ '1'hc c: rktrrf 'iYc;urt ttt tt;i.1it trl^lt^. about tk;c.iJ• t^^:si^lcs5 iti (117io;`" 'i'.1ie r^estt#iiJag rc^^z3cl. i n7ct^9 4`Cj311j')rG17l1lsivv. Tt does tn:3t merely provide sc»iie figut-es Otl snle.'", and li4t ^7t' ctt5tifs^sers ^N9iiclt is wliat wz3s anticipatccl...... -hut copiz's of invnices; ^111d M7er doctrrnc.nts. It i4 txittsi thorough and ilit cc,urt tlas:m.k.s lfic llait•tics liit• tltiisiaaf'n,ramation, coisrt. ti1,41;ii;c:a!!y ttskctl (he i3ttr•tics if th^y wanleii ^t i3c u i,7,i oJt tl c isr uc= of' jtlrisc3itrtir>17 fr? 111s7ltc sttclI ti tVqtIc.4t. No 'rrcgristr iv,xs rctattz:.stcc#• 'f'Itus the court cx>midt!r5 tlris 1170tic^tl sitsiil:lr tta 11isW it Consit.fiers 4+ :wtsmtst rr^ jttc3^t^x^sir s q^tcs;i. 'l hc 1>leatcfitt^, tlyu:tii. ti-iac:. As titi licaa'isig itvshren held, only apt'ilna hit;it: case mtrst bemaelc by f:ncltsi.l7," 31f 191 '^YcrtJl cl7^sa^^twtiir.w thGsc.^ sales "tasniall number o1'salc;s ltm- (10vety R) a tayt t>ight clistcltrtie,r i^c tatie^r,< isr ()itit^."s" lt nr^ues t:Et<:t i;s salt:^ isl ()hio do stOY juti5dic.ticstt by, ursr coa.trt,,'" it ;irguc-s t134 list c.4wtaMc:d in the li,n^; strsn st:st.ul.c., ll.(:', 2?t)7.;>S^?f ^}, -___.._._...... _._.:...... _ '' )ri. 3G 3ct. S_c Ttcrr i/{^ ^^. Chtri^s^r ^itr^ tif' J'rr^^irri 7 Appx. 134 flPR-24-2E309 04:06F't"i Frorn: ICJ:GRAYDOhi t1EAD Page:845 f2=93: 04taalzaa9 k'1tI 15: 1D Pax 119461052 cltsts nfafi c:izmiltjxw;; aitytiting duiie lte:re: The ttamt iat:>iieves the 6m fac.tG7rctti.Imwr;tt4cI in R.C'. 2307.38)"t.I;:ttZSactit#t; any Itrlsit)4ss"" .appIi", 'I7tt' fientl °trtlttSzictittg" is "vet'Y 15r«:atl1V wartlvc!" ^ay-S tl'iC (3f iYt} Sttl3T'i:117C C't)lit'I.'"; if201 l:.rttlWla ;tl> atlW,c, that 'I'yc lt 13'i.IG, til^ti 4vt)iIIC{ bC Ci)vCrcd tly R („`. 21()USQ)(31 Il)SXt l?3'E.)Vi(teeti,}c1FtSdii;t3(?Ii t)vCt' one "Jt:]:StlSil)g 1 7;ycotr ;r b'2.r,aii-m,ss irt OJrira 121) tJoder their comsttea, 1:;nqlrip could 17ot birrti'I'y:;4>n. l::rti}Llip itsok nrdel':;, tJtei.t settt t:}7e319 t(3 tycUl] AUr H.S apI)1'E.)vtll, ilt(', r(rp431'# SIt{)m^ that Tycon, tl3rCtut ).a 1',17fCJCtiI). #(?nkc7rderS3liOI$If7 in lhr, yens 1990, 199 9,1^)93, 1994, 2000, ;ttt)I, 2002, 200:3, 2004, 2005,ztt7c1 2406. Sa1cti w-crw Itt t0e tks D11 Pont, 13,1" t.30,,dric}t, alid c>tirter:s. 'I'17c lotvest saiet, fit;ttrc (oz' those yo-,?.rs was $964 ii:, 2004. l'ltc: pealc e-e4tr was Sl;>?16,382 in li)'.)t}. '1'It.c fti51 yt~ ,t'yi;ira tt`rt3ir,at:rcl t?nqE.Ii.ls'S critir,lvt ilut 17.oaype.Iic^d in 2007-wIfs 2006, In that year S1509 i3 s^tlui were matic. 'fltc s;.tlei tat;:l V,£tN,(7iti. For ±hc cic;vcii years in kv#tic.lt mIt;;s tscc>_urvd, thtlt is an avemgt; cir M 81085 wort:Ii oi' ;;a(as cuch ycar. Ti> irlcfudW tlio4c yycli.r;y fr tivltir.li ncs sttles ncett:roti, 111tit i;t aIt 19vc1'agc of $l iti,4/,7 each year. Sitic:e it tcrrtaitt.;tteci t? tc;tti}7'^ c ,I110's00i0j Is h7WJsrs1' Ojzll7cr S41tl:ti'11I0r7c:' ,122; 'I'!-ts.si?. sales f7igute-s c;:lcarly, 1(tow jllt'isciiciion is p3•irpur iIt Ohio on tltc h:3sis 01ai I vLol?: w'tts t3;.>75^,Ctlpg"btl.SilYC:m ltea'ir, lici>l3 Sm2t an ilgelit it1tu Lltis stkltC tca Wii4#t bit:yisiir;:;. T?7,ai Ittows it amcrmtt?c to ar's^t, e.slkuiialy as tEte Suit re,yaalt's (^i'tuts t17(; c.cant:r.10 Witlt F;tx}tlip that tta,idc: thmx;v w.t(es l3osii7lc; A pi'im,t fiac;ie mtwe has easily i7zon made and :;,) the lortt;-t.tm) 5wtltt„ R.C, ^n ht.+il7k;n'p t)uk4 ^i;liali {'r.,, r 4Mtrlta;/'s' r:rirma.ilFYc^irr, Iitr:. (1900), 53 t Jixirr;.xl:3d i3, 1:5, 4" ('lY2"77. 8 FtPR-24-2009 04: @bPM From: IC7: GRflYDCJN NEAD Pa 9e : H4b R=93% Appx. 135 - i. 04i7a12048 EHZ 15:14 F"x 2307.382, aphiie,;; fiei'c 'Z'ht'z'c(:i>r.c; itis 1101, iytici,5,5Ivy tta tttitliks5 1a;tili7ip`ti . alter c.go" ^xr^sa3t.'tt.sttb (in t11c',jut'isc#ic^titzi7al i,^;ctte. (123) 13U is it ]art,l7c.r l'c)r thc cotirt tir cxorcisca the jui-i;;c3ir.ticin ii tt.ts li^ultcl't jJ24) TYcott hsYetivingly<(c°eelatt:ci t?rtlLr-s a1" t:)lau, r:uitonwa:s, lt pl,rp o3'Me priole.gs tsL' cloisag husiife^;a it3 tiais Stat,:, Sdhg f3c>..rlj^ $2 million worth ofgot>t?s in dos Mate is 131tie1l ►a7tu-e tfxatl hxtviitt; t1ic= 3tc:,ces5ary mioi.tnt;f}a eomaitc 31zar. '1'ycu» having s;7},,i this S1Ctu}pS1w'nt over a sCVCICt{'at3yei11' pLiY(1d :SJIf)w1i 1ts cf1iltat'-ts were {:olltlfiwus 7i1C1 sy$(G•Il'li1tl4.li CJtlcs not 4}1l.C)7C1 triaditli)j7iil 1KoCln of All' 13Ny and ktSt.lcCAr ti123:t to ti^-' lIZ't?1Jg17ttllto Ohio, a p}..'.it.'eTyckJil c:nuJcl re::ts;tmably have heen expcctiai to ;ac szicci N. 1 xaciyint?, jiyri::tlic:tion is proper tuatl<.r (lat Due Proou.ss C."i;uz,e, tai`ttae I;crat`lec>t7t:la Annerac.4nient. 1125) `1'jc:on"5 9,ac>tiot, to ziisttZiss tt}E' 1aGli i^f'^^4ts^aitc^I j ctt'iscfiCiiUtt is tlt,tii4d, Jurisdiction [)ver. 7f::1{it^ k1i?t>j It^tlita is i'lac lc^ust htjc,wn to i}7e totzt•t. It K:fievc+;; ft lrWxsad:; littlc llics'st?ess on its own. l:.,ittlc has been said about it by the ^.^rtrtii:s, f127; lt does not appear ttalia l7a5 tratasactc^ci i^tt^irtirs5 itr this stiltc. t:vLlt ia.i t:1ae hz'c,,adcst smatic of tlmt v+t'yt'd. Jtw cf7ia`tcuuxctimt to thassMio i4llailt: itAs ntwmeii byi,obl5'sns S& M,ycrs: "1'laat doc.s aiot t:1ake it 50^jca:t to,jur.tsclictiuil fzet'e, 1.ity4317itt: & 1'vpum's chief exkcuiivc, Peter t.', 'J^Jailat;e, is ssaic3 k.t be a c3imetny of [w1=a. 13tat lic.^,c.a^lw titl of1icer of clif-cc:tot- Ohio, 11kSt does 17tJt 1}lt1ke lS.R111i 5U1Zji.1ct to jii)'#sd14ti{}t7 }ZGre cll.1]e1'. ltFil3ii niCSs111iive dt3tlt, s4;91C1hSll^.i to bi`izti i< j1)28 } It is pos:;ibie tla;3t lt,tiia eom(rlittGSi a tortcxaus tet :tg ;,tib}cet icf jnvi.sciictic3ia under TC! 2307.382. his fiiw() pc,ssiWc: tht 1t,ilinis the aita c:gn cr{'W oahct, deklldwltS and jt)1'1:%(11Gth)J'] Y='t}Wd hC pPY)pa, 13YC11;3sCxUll)i314Y tiit tt) 17e il'U4, tiZe cUut't A11C1;;ti ijlitt it wc:attld mat W proper For it to oxerckse itw jtazistlicfit^x7, 9 ID : CRA'^'f^(7tt1 NEAb A^^e : W R=93 % ^;PR-24-2009 04:o6Pi'1 From. 94/241200g sxI 1S:11 FAX p0aa/o6z jq; Il:y` t2l}31t:I(':I$ Wt:I'U 1131T1ilII'<1i.. Itti f,{>I7MC('S, 2113lI1g f71TI73.lit1., MT('Z ItCI(Il040171p7:U13C1SI1!7S' ;jytC'11YI1LIk), i1 would af(calki tiadE(i«nY1 Imti0^ns rri' f.iur i31ap and ,justicc, Ei'Ir stu; to be bram.Ilr(I; imo OiQ apQc:e litilia txrwCI itEn reaasoEta(;1y have buen c,XpNate1 to be sut,d iit, h"Xul'eising jttr'smlu;tot N ittlpamI' 1ttldct' rhei.auc: 3'rvevtis (''1nuie.^ t,t't.b:v Fourteenth hlyicndsnenf. 11:30; ltatitl'4 r»ntiorl to dis)tliss fior lack of is;..I;737EC.(1. (x"c.ene C'otrzrty .'1,^an iiiconvexiiCCx't Foruz)F'r (',^3I ;'1bo1lt;li ,fu'i;; i'0r11Ii) wvt.ld be itrcnnvnnient to the de:Fealdntzts." '1'yc011 .,Whic.Ii iSi70Nu the tic;iclidat.tt;; t-ti•i1l 110ri:alit=r bc. lai7^feci-, .,^t•g ucw j.hiS 0;:iSc sElic>ultl lic irt Ikaly. l=o•r.rm pz=tr}r,y Q32fCrrtttattdsk' tlecl;iriltg, a forlml i13co1itrcnierlt incIl2de clttcs[ioIts of` thc` avz;il;,laility s>l' GvideIit,c, itad Evitnessos, "•Ixedler a jliclt;rlreal( c.tsttld !^e en%t:ii; ,1Iad "l7r;tuiiwi hrcsiz:1p; cat ntake tt'ioi«t` a casc, eay, exhmtfitimN kj at7t1 inexlac^its;tre,^ ^ l'17c: b,ylaul4t* o I' Cact:orsfttt.r,^t Ix, hc;avil^ iI^ i;'tv()! o11t1i;fa;nc3w7ts ibt' a pItt;Il.titZwS cltcjke ti1'Ii'ttitl to bU upwt.''° {113.3 i, O"s1L:L'lidlrii hyCp)) j7flS Itli1(IC^ CQI'SEi'r11$ the f't)r11171 SC'•lGCfi011 t;.1Li11yC tIl t.hl', :id t r}eh,vOon 1~'.Iltl>.Iip, and 'I'ycm3. •I'13c clsuz•s. A: already i'tatmt-i tit,ttuIautie. diti t7m ►•eyilite tlie e.we bc Pit4: tiu: vc>cJ!'et•atts txrgI.Intora!s fltltcEe, by &fc:ncfants.•" k•et 'l°yP;n Sd[l i.I3osts th4: i:.ait#ract I•oyltiz•4s ilic uue i:t> hc c.ot3fius`.te4l izl: ltttlp,, `T'he rotlI•t Icicctad thatt^r^ ttll e+7i iIt ^ i3cigG: Y)2'dC!', `i'o M,1,, thc i.s51te was 1ht^I"<)1ag lJl3c addressed ; fl'Ctti{)' is stl ltll `7cate c^'rtl.n;S'niilh v( 1r^rrht;^>,r C'Ir. t.'t, I (? Appx. 137 AFR-24-2009 e4:06PM From: ID:G12AYDON HEAD page:048 R=93% 04/2432009 FRI 15. ia. i?P.X 14449 i 462 't't1.e; iori1311 sCIectiolt c.lalt"'c is tti> lca»t:c:r rc:levant. T}-con'; ,trf;tuzit:tlts lia -4 t-lcrir c:()it4ict .rcci altd rc`.j e:c: w(i, ;;(3^^ 'l^'^Fi:oi^ alst3 axhr^^4sc,s its c^>ilieit7 fc^r ll^^c !^a,rEicrr tltis ^_za5t:^ it7^^7^^;.^4 a.it? thiti ca>ilirt. tt (!1e t_,'itit dStt?tcw SE:prc:lu€, (V.trt t;t1 thc"Ixa(Ylit, ittt ol't^]ai(7tic it7lGresisalsir lt;avc: pitic^ i^t apt^lYitt^ the doctrine, R.k:frltilti;trativc: tti11`ict.lttic4 1'0lIE:ivx, Ii)r Cztuf't.4 r,Ir{u°tl iitigati«t.l, is pitcd Ltp i;r cange;sfr:d cc.wor,i l^stc duty is a l.,lxr(lt~tT tl3W ai1g11t tltii 4'i)IK: itnpoticd LipCiri the Pooplooi`a c,t?ajlslltl^litl Wfliull ,lt1yn^7 rtl:1ti{7tl to ttl W}lieit to>.tc,li tl.lc, ;ti1'.iit°S ()i' nxanv pet•mrs, tltcac is rc^i:;oai tur ltcriding, t:lic tria1 in tlauia' ifiewand 1e<,a:17 r"Ithc.e tlt r^.t3a^t^t «tlly. `!'lyol'e i", tl 10c;Ltt 'srtitr^^at. i3^ Itntrit7t! Iocalizcci ^.c^tttath^^cssics timidtd at ttmtac.. There is