Butler v
.docx
School
University of Makati**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
LAW CONSTI1
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 17, 2024
Pages
1
Uploaded by DrRainLlama9
Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC; 486 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (2007)Plaintiffs were certified and approved to adopt. The Independent Adoption Center("IAC") referred plaintiffs to the website, ParentProfiles.com, as part of plaintiffs' searchfor an adoptable child. Later, Michael Butler called Adoption.com's toll-free number toinquire about the status of the application. He spoke with Dale Gwilliam. In the course ofthe conversation, Dale told Michael that plaintiffs would not be permitted to useParentProfiles.com's services. The partnership had adopted a policy allowing onlyindividuals in an opposite-sex marriage to post profiles on the website. Dale testified inhis deposition that the "opposite gender component is an essential component of thepolicy." Nathan testified that a same-sex couple registered under California's domesticpartnership law would not qualify under the policy because they are not married, andthat even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry in all 50 states, defendantswould still be reluctant to change the policy and would instead "look at all the evidencegathered altogether and make a decision" as to whether to modify their policy.ISSUE AND RULINGWhether California law applies. YESIn deciding which state's law to apply, the court found that the failure to apply Californialaw would have undermined the Unruh Act, thus California had a significant interest toprotect while Arizona's interests would not be seriously impaired by applying Californialaw. The court found that there was a triable issue as to whether the policy of notallowing unmarried couples to post profiles on the adoption website amounted to maritalstatus discrimination. The court also found, given the unclear status of California law atthe time, that the operators should not be subjected to damages for marital statusdiscrimination; however, the claim for injunctive relief could go forward as the courtfound that the operators had not actually articulated any legitimate business reason forits "married-couples-only" policy. The unfair competition and false advertising lawsclaims were dismissed. Accordingly, the partners' motion for summary judgment wasdenied; the operators' motion for summary judgment was granted as to the unfaircompetition and false advertising claims; granted as to the claims of alter ego andsuccessor liability; and denied as to the claims under the Unruh Act.In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties, California applies the"governmental interest" test. A court carefully examines the govern mental interests orpurposes served by the applicable statute or rule of law of each of the affectedjurisdictions to determine whether there is a "true conflict." If such a conflict is found toexist, the court analyzes the jurisdictions' respective interests to determine whichjurisdiction's interests would be more severely impaired if that jurisdiction's law were notapplied in the particular context presented by the case. First, the court determineswhether the relevant law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard tothe particular issue in question is the same or different. Second, if there is a difference,the court examines each jurisdiction's interest in the application of its own law under thecircumstances of the particular case to determine whether a true conflict exists. Third, ifthe court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and compares thenature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction in the application of its own law"to determine which state's interest would be more impaired if its policy weresubordinated to the policy of the other state" . . . and then ultimately applies "the law ofthe state whose interest would be the more impaired if its law were not applied."
