A consideration of these factors here militates in favor of retaining this action. First, this action has numerous connections with New York. Mr. Price, the plaintiff with the most at stake, is a New York resident. Moreover, at least some of the negotiations leading up to the Merger and the related put option agreements, took place in this State. In addition, defendant merged with a New York corporation, and plaintiffs are each former principals of that corporation.
Defendant also continues to do substantial business in New York.
Next, although Washington provides an alternative forum for this action, the other factors are not strongly in favor of defendant. Notably, defendant has substantial business operations in New York, and its executives travel to this State regularly. Accordingly, defendant will not be unreasonably burdened by having to defend this action in New York. Moreover, the court is not persuaded that defendant will be prejudiced because its trial witnesses reside outside of New York. Most of these witnesses are under defendant's employ or control.