Opinion ID: 174852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interstate Judicial System's Interest in Efficiency

Text: This factor asks whether the forum state is the most efficient place to litigate the dispute. AST Sports Sci., 514 F.3d at 1062 (internal quotation marks omitted). Key to this inquiry are the location of the witnesses, where the wrong underlying the lawsuit occurred, what forum's substantive law governs the case, and whether jurisdiction is necessary to prevent piecemeal litigation. TH Agric. & Nutrition, 488 F.3d at 1296 (internal quotation marks omitted). This factor slightly favors EMC because the record is insufficient to determine whether Wyoming or Utah is the most efficient place to litigate the dispute. AST Sports Sci., 514 F.3d at 1062 (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, neither party has identified any potential witnesses to the declaratory judgment action. Although the CGL policies were negotiated and executed in Utah, see OMI Holdings, 149 F.3d at 1097, Bartile performed the allegedly negligent work on the luxury hotel in Wyoming, see TH Agric. & Nutrition, 488 F.3d at 1296; Benton, 375 F.3d at 1080. Furthermore, as noted infra Part III, Utah and Wyoming law are not in actual conflict regarding the issues relevant to this action. OMI Holdings, 149 F.3d at 1097. Finally, personal jurisdiction in Wyoming avoids some piecemeal litigation. Although the underlying state-court action was filed in California, the District of Wyoming has ruled on an insurance claim arising from the same construction project. See Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Bitterroot Timberframes of Wyo., LLC, No. 06-CV-020-WCB, 2006 WL 3933078, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94826 (D.Wyo. Oct.20, 2006). Therefore, irrespective of whether the District of Wyoming is actually the most efficient place to litigate this dispute, we conclude that it has some litigation-related advantages over the District of Utah as a forum, and this factor slightly favors EMC.