misrepresentation; economic duress; and breach of fiduciary responsibility. 3 . The parties apparently do not dispute that Texas law applies to determine whether a contract was formed in this case. 4 . Stinger does not address the issue of choice of law in his brief. However, he cites only cases applying California law. Given that Stinger is a Texas resident, Chase is a Delaware bank, JPMC is an Ohio bank, the contract provides for Delaware law, and Stinger offers no rationale for using California law, we decline to use California law to resolve this dispute. 5 . All of the cases Stinger cites apply California law and are factually distinguishable from this case. See Armendariz. v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 114, 117-18, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Badie v. Bank of Am., 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 79
holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea holding that the party demanding arbitration had waived its right to arbitrate by filing eight months earlier a complaint against the other party to the arbitration agreement holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees holding that an agreement to arbitrate is illusory if as here the employer can unilaterally modify the contract holding unconscionable under california law employment contract compelling arbitration of claims employee most likely to bring against employer but not claims employer most likely to bring against employee and requiring first 125 of arbitration fees to be paid by employee