retroactively, they could not demonstrate reliance). If this late discovery rule, as stated in Lewis v. Hermann, were applied to Plaintiffs here, their claims would be barred by the Short statute of limitations. However, there also is language in Ferguson v. Roberts and in other cases that supports an alternative basis for reliance. These eases seem to indicate that if a plaintiff, at the time he files his lawsuit, and in reliance on Illinois law, forwent an opportunity to pursue his lawsuit in a different forum, he demonstrates reliance. See Ferguson v. Roberts, 11 F.3d at 702-03 n. 7 (noting that the plaintiffs had not argued that they missed other opportunities to pursue their claims in reliance on Illinois law); Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121, 1129 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); McCool v. Strata Oil Co., 972 F.2d 1452, 1459
holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations