rds in it. 8 EFTA00210702 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 9 of 21 defendants or new claims. See King, Cessna Aircraft Co., 2010 WL 5253526, at *10 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Courts have frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See, e.g., Jos

location of the primary evidence of Plaintiffs' claim of breach—the cabinetry—is located here. 3I V.1. CODE ANN. tit. 5. § 4905 (1997). $3 Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 862 F.2d 38, 42 (3d Cir. 1988). "C&C/Marthattan v. Saner Inc., No. CIV. 98/1999, 1999 WL 1240859, at *5 (V.1. Ten. Ct. Oct. 14, 1999). m Idiocy v

s in it. 8 EFTA00613651 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 9 of 21 defendants or new claims. See King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 2010 WL 5253526, at *10 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Courts have frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See, e.g., Jos

s in it. 8 EFTA01626122 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 9 of 21 defendants or new claims. See King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 2010 WL 5253526, at *10 (S.D. Ha. 2010). Courts have frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See, e.g., Josh

Texas courts apply the "most significant relationship" test set out in Restatement Restatement (Secon Conflict of Laws §§ 6 and 145. See Duncan Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 420-21 ex.I984) ("[f]n all choice of law cases, except those contract cases in which the parties have agreed to a valid choice o