relationship to the parties or transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice of law, or (b) application of Virginia law "would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and which, under the rule of [Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws] § 188, would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 (1971). Plaintiffs do not claim Virginia has no substantial relation to the transaction; after all, Virginia is where AOL has its principal place of business. See Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.4th 886, 36 Cal. Rptr.3d 456, 458-59 (2005) (<HOLDING>). To determine whether California "has a
holding that under certain conditions a bank assumes a duty to disclose facts material to a transaction holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor holding judge in bank robbery prosecution did not abuse discretion in refusing to excuse juror whose wife was bank employee or juror whose daughter had been victim of bank robbery holding delaware had a substantial relation to transaction where defendant discover bank was domiciled in that state holding the bank liable where the bank had almost complete control over the operation of the company during its last three quarters of operation and where withheld taxes were not paid to the irs on instructions from the bank