states make concrete policy choices about the extent of liability it is proper to impose on defendants. Cf. McCann, 48 Cal.4th at 91, 105 Cal. Rptr.3d 378, 225 P.3d 516 (“[A]t the same time terminating all liability after that deadline regardless of whether the plaintiffs injury had yet occurred or become manifest, the relevant statute of repose was intended to balance the interest of injured persons in having a remedy available for such injuries against the interest of builders, architects, and designers of real property improvements in being subject to a specified time limit during which they would remain potentially liable for their actions in connection with such improvements”); Rodriguez v. Mahony, No. CV 10-02902-JST (JEMx), 2012 WL 1057428, *9 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have identified no countervailing
holding that each state has strong interest in applying its own statutes of limitations and describing the policy choices embodied in each states statute holding that a notice requirement in a new york statute conflicted with the copyright acts statute of limitations and stating that the state has no power to resist congresss determina tion of fairness as embodied in the federal statute of limitations holding that absent an applicable federal statute of limitations state statutes of limitations should be applied in  301 cases if they are not in conflict with federal policy holding that each element required under the act must be included in the written notice and each element must be sufficiently clear and accurate  holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors