Therefore, although substantial deference is typically given to Plaintiff's choice of forum, the court will afford less deference to the forum choice where the court finds that the action commenced was an anticipatory filing. See Telebrands Corp. v. Martfive, LLC, 2013 WL 4675558, *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2013) (citing Church & Dwight v. Mayer Laboratories, Inc., 2010 WL 3907038, *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2010)); see also Joanna Foods, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 2010 WL 4721521, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2010) ("Although Plaintiff correctly argues that substantial deference is typically given to Plaintiff's choice of forum, the Court affords less deference to Plaintiff's forum choice ...[as] Plaintiff did indeed engage in a race to the courthouse."). It is entirely conceivable that Nationstar could be considered the "real" plaintiff in the case.

"That the Third Circuit has embraced the anticipatory filing doctrine in connection with the first-filed rule, however, suggests that it would likewise embrace the notion that little or no weight should be accorded to the forum preference of a plaintiff that files an anticipatory suit." Church & Dwight, 2010 WL 3907038, at *7; see also Joanna Foods, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 2010 WL 4721521, at *3 ("Although Plaintiff correctly argues that substantial deference is typically given to Plaintiff's choice of forum, the Court affords less deference to Plaintiff's forum choice in this case for several reasons. Most significantly, the Court finds that Plaintiff did indeed engage in a race to the courthouse.").