(D.I. 22 at 7-8) For reasons the Court has previously explained, an analysis as to whether Delaware is Plaintiff's "home turf" is unnecessary here, as it has no independent significance as to this first Jumara private interest factor. Tessera, Inc., 2017 WL 1065865, at *4 n.6; Pragmatus, 2012 WL 4889438, at *5; see also Applied Predictive Techs., Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-963-CFC, 2019 WL 2745724, at *3 (D. Del. July 1, 2019). Because there are legitimate reasons for Plaintiff having filed this case in this Court, this factor weighs against transfer.
For reasons the Court has previously explained, whether Delaware is Plaintiff's "home turf" is not relevant here, as it has no independent significance as to this first Jumara private interest factor. Tessera, Inc., 2017 WL 1065865, at *4 n.6; Pragmatus, 2012 WL 4889438, at *5; see also Applied Predictive Techs., Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-963-CFC, 2019 WL 2745724, at *3 (D. Del. July 1, 2019). Because there are legitimate reasons for Plaintiff having filed suit in this Court, this factor weighs against transfer.
Accordingly, I cannot fairly conclude that court congestion favors transfer. See Applied Predictive Tech., Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc., 2019 WL 2745724, at *5 (D. Del. July 1, 2019) (comparing congestion of the two jurisdictions and finding that the relative caseloads favors transfer). See United States District Court District of Delaware Annual Report 2019, available at https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/news/Court%20Report2019Final.pdf.
Thus, the portion of Defendant's motion directed to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) is denied as moot. See Applied Predictive Techs., Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc., No. 18-963 (CFC), 2019 WL 2745724, at *5 (D. Del. July 1, 2019) (denying defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot because the court granted defendants' motion to transfer). I. BACKGROUND