Frieda Klingebiel and Henry Klingebiel v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, a California Corporation

These are diversity actions in which we are required to apply the law of California. 1 All of them are actions for wrongful death of foreign nationals occurring abroad or elsewhere in the United States. The sole question presented is whether the district court was correct in applying the California Statute of Limitations.

In considering such a question, we apply two principles. The first is that the duty of the federal court is to ascertain and apply the existing California law, 2 not to predict that California may change its law and then to apply the federal court’s notion of what that change might or ought to be. 3 ****The proper fora in which to seek to change California law are the California legislature and the California courts, not the federal courts. Only when the question has not been decided in California do we *347 have the doubtful privilege of “first guessing” what the California courts might do. This is not such a case. The second is that in doubtful cases, we defer to the judgment of the local judge, who knows at least as much about the law of his state as we do. 4

In these cases, District Judge Zirpoli, in a careful opinion, held that the California statute is…

(concurring specially):

I concur in the result, but not for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. I believe that California’s new interest balancing approach to conflict of laws problems, announced in Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 432 P.2d 727 (Cal.1967), was intended to be applicable alike to substantive and procedural choice of law problems. This conclusion is not based on a prediction that California will change its law to this effect but rather on a belief that the reasoning in Reich dictates it. I also believe that such a conclusion is dictated in this Circuit by Horton v. Jessie, 423 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1970).

Applying an interest balancing approach to the particular facts of this case, I conclude that California would apply its own statute of limitations and dismiss the action.

494 F.2d 345 Frieda KLINGEBIEL and Henry Klingebiel et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 72-1160 * . United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Feb. 20, 1974. Jonathan J. Wilcox (argued), of Belli, Ashe, Ellison, Choulos & Lief, Robert L. Lieff, of Lieff, Alexander, Wilcox & Hill, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. Jacques E. Soiret (argued), Robert E. Moore, Jr., of Kirtland & Packard, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. OPINION Before DUNIWAY, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 These are diversity actions in which we are required to apply the law of California. 1 All of them are actions for wrongful death of foreign nationals occurring abroad or elsewhere in the United States. The sole question presented is whether the district court was correct in applying the California Statute of Limitations. 2 In considering such a question, we apply two principles. The first is that the duty of the federal court is to ascertain and apply the existing California law, 2 not to predict that California may change its law and then to apply the federal…