claims against Ernst & Young and Mass Mutual specified that dismissal was pursuant to CR 12(b)(6). The orders dismissing claims against Tremont and Oppenheimer did not cite a specific rule. In its briefing to this court, Tremont acknowledges that the trial court dismissed under CR 12(b)(6). Oppenheimer argues that FutureSelect’s claims were dismissed based on both CR 12(b)(6) and CR 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction). 15 Under the principle of dépefage, different issues in a single case arising out of a common nucleus of facts may be decided according to the substantive law of different states. See Experience Hendrix, LLC v. HendrixLicensing.com, LTD, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1136 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (citing Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1175 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (<HOLDING>)); see also Singh v. Edwards Lifesciences
recognizing that washington courts might  apply the law of one forum to one issue while applying the law of a different forum to another issue in the same case  quoting 1 kelly kunsch washington practice methods of practice  221 4th ed 1997  supp 2008 holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim