all of the relevant evidence was located abroad; here, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the relevant evidence is abroad, and the nature of Ms. Ito’s claims strongly suggests that most of the relevant evidence and witnesses are located in California.
The factual differences between this case and Goldcorp demonstrate that there is no inconsistency between the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and the First Circuit’s opinion in Goldcorp. In both cases, the courts of appeals properly reviewed the district courts’ balancing of the Gilbert factors and considered whether the district court gave proper weight to each factor. No further consideration is necessary or desirable, and thus review should be denied. See S. Ct. R. 10.
The Ninth Circuit Accorded Appropriate Weight To Principles Of Comity In Evaluating The Public Interest Factors.
Petitioner also argues that the Court of Appeals disregarded Japan’s interest in the litigation. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals explicitly considered Japan’s interest in the litigation. Pet. App. 5a (“Japan may have some interest in protecting its corporate insurers . . . .”). The court expressly found, however, that California’s interest outweighs Japan’s, insofar as states have a strong interest in providing a forum for their residents who are injured. By giving greater weight to the interests of the plaintiff’s home state when the plaintiff alleges fraud, among other things, the Court of Appeals’ holding is consistent with that of the Second Circuit, which has held that a state has a great interest in protecting its citizens from fraud. See, e.g., Alnwick v. Euro. Micro Holdings, Inc., 29 F. App’x
781, 784 (2d Cir. 2002).
Contrary to Petitioner’s
characterization, California’s interest in this case does not lie in