policies underlying its law, the state has no interest in having its law apply.” Ibid, (citing D’Agostino, supra, 255 N.J.Super. at 315-17, 605 A.2d 252). It is uncontested that Quintana Roo’s interest in the application of its contributory negligence principles to plaintiffs negligence claim arises from its perceived need to regulate the conduct of its hotel managers and employees. The State has a similarly strong interest in controlling conduct among tourists who provide a significant portion of the country’s economic wealth. It also has an interest in maintaining the predictability of its tort laws, among others, as such laws have an impact on Mexico’s economy both generally and through its tourist industry. Cf. Hernandez v. Burger, 102 Cal.App.3d 795, 162 Cal.Rptr. 564, 568 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The interest of Quintana Roo is thus directly
recognizing tedder as a significant procedural safeguard holding that the classofone equal protection theory has no place in the public employment context recognizing protection of the tourist industry as significant in a damages context holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context