to rule on the remand issue.” (Defs. Mem. at 7.) Customarily, a federal court first resolves any doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case before reaching the merits or otherwise disposing of the case. On some occasions, however, considerations of judicial economy and restraint may persuade the court to -avoid a difficult question of subject-matter jurisdiction when the case may be disposed of on a simpler ground. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Peaslee, 88 F.3d 152, 155 (2d Cir. 1996). The court is skeptical that transferring the case to a different federal venue constitutes a "disposal” under Cantor, since it would not moot the question of jurisdiction. Cf. Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007)
holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction holding that  1404a governed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer based upon a forum selection clause despite the current forums public policy that may refuse to enforce such provisions holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive holding that a district court has discretion to grant a defendants forum non conveniens motion to transfer before disposing of any other threshold challenges holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum