Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott, Judge Furman ordered supplemental briefing on choice-of-law issues affecting Plaintiffs’ requested injunction.
The plaintiffs, Willis RE Inc. and the other named plaintiffs, and Defendant Paul Herriott were required to address the identified choice-of-law and California Labor Code Section 925 questions before the court considered the requested injunction.
What happened
Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott concerned Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court said additional briefing was warranted before deciding that motion.
The court identified questions about whether New York law permits a court to disregard a contract’s New York choice-of-law provision when another state’s fundamental public policy conflicts with it. It also questioned how California Labor Code Section 925 interacts with the choice-of-law provisions in the parties’ agreements.
Judge Furman ordered both sides to file supplemental briefs of no more than ten pages by February 8, 2021. The order did not grant or deny the requested injunction.
The detailed version
- Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott · No. 1:21-cv-00487
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background Plaintiffs Willis RE Inc. and other plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Defendant Paul Herriott. The opinion does not state the requested relief’s specific terms.
Issues identified by the court The court focused on how a New York choice-of-law provision interacts with two legal issues:
1. The New York Court of Appeals held in Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Board v. Snow that New York courts should not conduct a traditional conflict-of-laws analysis when the parties’ contract contains a choice-of-law provision. Plaintiffs argued that this holding prevents application of the traditional “most significant contacts” analysis urged by Defendant. The court also noted that a Second Circuit summary order had suggested, without deciding, that an exception might remain when applying the chosen law would violate the fundamental public policy of a state with a materially greater interest.
2. Defendant relied substantially on California Labor Code § 925 and on Focus Financial Partners, LLC v. Holsopple. The court observed that Focus Financial Partners appeared to apply Section 925 as part of a traditional conflict-of-laws analysis. The court therefore questioned whether it should conduct that analysis before considering Section 925, or whether Section 925 could apply without regard to traditional choice-of-law principles and potentially make the choice-of-law provisions in the parties’ agreements void or voidable.
Order The court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs by February 8, 2021, with each brief limited to ten pages. The briefs had to address whether New York courts may disregard a New York choice-of-law provision based on another state’s fundamental public policy and whether California Labor Code § 925 applies before, after, or independently of traditional choice-of-law principles. The opinion does not decide those questions and does not state that the motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was granted or denied. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.