Huff also recognized that the choice of law in this case was not an obvious one, and denied the motion without prejudice to Defendant raising the issue after the parties had conducted relevant discovery. Defendant asserts that since filing its motion, discovery has revealed facts sufficient to support the application of Australian law. Australian law does not recognize a bad faith claim or allow for the recovery of punitive damages based on breach of an insurance contract. (Id. at 7.) Therefore, these claims would be barred. The laws of California and Australia are materially different, making the choice of law analysis a matter of great importance in this case. See, e.g., Stonewall Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 637, 645, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 713 (<HOLDING>). Because of the material difference in law,
holding state and federal actions not parallel for colorado river purposes because the remedies were different  one was equitable and the other compensatory  and the sources of law came from different states 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 application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations recognizing that an ohio court should apply local law unless a party meets the burden of showing that foreign law requires a different result