9
See, e.g., Whitesides v. E*TRADE Sec., LLC, No. 20-cv-05803, 2021 WL 930794
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021); Bajwa v. United States Life Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-00938, 2021 WL
2661836 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2021); Young v. Grand Canyon Univ., Inc., No. 19-CV-1707,
2021 WL 3403746 (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2021); Konair US, LLC v. DGI II, LLC, No. 19-cv-
05728, 2021 WL 135308 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2021);
Savis, Inc. v. Cardenas, 528 F. Supp. 3d
868 (N.D. Ill. 2021); Mirror Finish PDR, LLC v. Cosm. Car Co. Holdings, 513 F. Supp. 3d
1054 (S.D. Ill. 2021); Johnson, 2021 WL 4477893; Leblanc v. Delta Airlines, No. 19-13598,
2021 WL 1517907 (E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2021); Great Lakes Ins. SE v.
Andersson, 544 F. Supp.
3d 196 (D. Mass. 2021); CRG Fin., LLC v. Two Diamond Cap. Corp., No. 19-cv-10182, 2021
WL 2458202 (D. Mass. June 16, 2021); N. Shore Window & Door, Inc. v. Andersen Corp.,
No. 19-cv-6194,
2021 WL 4205196 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2021); Palumbo v. Provident Tr. Grp.
LLC, No. 19-CV-0252, 2021 WL 1110797 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021); Audax Credit
Opportunities Offshore Ltd. v. TMK Hark Parent, Corp., No. 565123/2020, slip op. at 1
963 2023] The Scope of Generic Choice of Law Clauses
narrowly (that is, as extending only to breach of contract claims), the
plaintiff would have been permitted to advance his North Carolina
UDTPA claims.
It is clear that the interpretation question had a significant bearing on
the outcome of the Adelman’s case — i.e., it foreclosed certain statutory
avenues of redress for the plaintiff.
7
The same will be true in any other
litigated case. Parties do not litigate choice of law issues unless the stakes
are high enough to warrant it. It is a safe bet that every case involving a
choice of law scope issue will have a considerable impact on the
plaintiff’s recovery or the defendant’s defense.
8
Since 2020, dozens of
cases have considered scope issues in conjunction with choice of law
clauses.
9
In some of these cases, the results were probably pre-
7
See also ICS N. Am. Corp. v. Collage.com, Inc., No. 19-11521, 2020 WL 5801191, at *5
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2020) (“Collage’s argument [in favor of a broad interpretation]
carries the day. The choice of law provision at issue here is nearly identical to that at issue
in Adelman’s Truck Parts Corp. v. Jones Transp . . . .”).
8
See Johnson v. Diakon Logistics, No. 16-CV-06776, 2021 WL 4477893, at *1, *5 (N.D.
Ill. Sept. 30, 2021) (“Diakon contends that the Virginia choice-of-law provisions
contained within the Service Agreements preclude Plaintiffs’ claim under the
IWPCA. Plaintiffs attack this position on two grounds . . . . Plaintiffs assert that the
IWPCA claim, as a statutory claim, falls outside the coverage of the choice-of-law
provision . . . . Both sides acknowledge, however, that if Virginia law governs, Plaintiffs
will be unable to prevail on claims under the IWPCA.”).
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 16, 2021); Ochoa v. Indus. Ventilation, Inc., No. 18-CV-0393, 2021 WL
5405203 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 18, 2021); Warwick v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 538 F. Supp. 3d 867
(E.D. Wis. 2021).