California’s 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut’s 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer’s malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device.  A statute of limitations serves the state’s interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have faded and protecting its courts against have to try old claims.  Both of those interests would be served by applying California’s shorter statute of limitations, while Connecticut had no governmental interest in having its longer statute of limitations apply.  Thus, there was a false conflict, and California law applied, barring the claim.  The fact that plaintiff had been lured into filing in California by defendant’s agreement to toll the statute of limitations on suits filed here didn’t help plaintiffs.  The California statute of limitations had already run on their claim before they were identified as parties to the tolling agreement.  No misrepresentation was made to them.  They were represented by counsel.  So they couldn’t invoke equitable estoppel to avoid the limitations bar either.