the dispute.” Stewart, 74 Cal.L.Rev. at 1283. We conclude that Missouri has a stronger interest in this litigation than does Jamaica. B. Application of Substantive Law Applying Missouri’s choice of law rules, the district court concluded Jamaican substantive law applied to this dispute, which neither party disputes. In fact, Reid-Walen specifically bases her claim that the Hansens breached their duty of care on several Jamaican statutes. The district court did not conclude it would have particular difficulty applying Jamaican law. Jamaica’s substantive law is descended from that of Great Britain, and contains concepts that are at least somewhat akin to our own. In addition, there is no language barrier to the district court understanding Jamaican law. See Rudetsky, 660 F.Supp. at 348 (<HOLDING>). Although the district court concluded that
holding less than twothirds of the stock holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum holding that court should be less reluctant than usual to apply foreign law when there is no language barrier holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum