This week, we take a look at one decision considering when
California law requires application of California's statute of
limitations, and another reiterating the strict standard for
pleading scienter in a securities fraud case.
RUSTICO v. INTUITIVE SURGERY,
INC.
The Court holds that under California choice-of-law
principles, California's statute of limitations applies when a
state resident is sued in California and the conflicting
out-of-state law is not intended to protect plaintiffs.
Panel: Judges Wardlaw, Bea, and
Caine, Jr. (W.D. La.), with Judge Bea writing the opinion.
Key highlight: "Both
California and Connecticut's statutes of limitations are
designed to protect in-state defendants and courts by preventing
the litigation of stale claims and limiting in-state liability. But
the Rusticos, now citizens of Florida, attempt to thwart this
policy by reviving their stale claims and extending in-state
liability. The application of only California's
