Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although the complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, there “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. A. Choice of Law Under Georgia’s choice of law doctrine of lex loci delictis, the law of the state where the injury occurred governs the fraud action. See Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Kemp, 244 Ga.App. 638, 536 S.E.2d 303, 306 (2000). An exception to this rule is where the foreign state’s law contravenes Georgia’s established public policy. See Alexander v. Gen. Motors Corp., 219 Ga.App. 660, 466 S.E.2d 607, 609 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, Alexander v. Gen. Motors Corp., 267 Ga. 339, 478 S.E.2d 123, 123-24 (1996) (<HOLDING>). “The burden is on the party seeking to
recognizing the public interest exception holding that the court of appeals correctly stated the public policy exception but erroneously concluded that the exception did not apply recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception recognizing exception recognizing that under puerto rico law res judicata may not apply if  public policy demands an exception but noting that this exception was successfully argued in only two cases and concluding that public policy does not demand an exception in this case