choice of forum should be given “paramount consideration.” (D.I. 19 at 15-16) (citing Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25) ACI responds that GPH’s choice should be accorded “little or no weight” because Delaware is not GPH’s “home turf.” (See D.I. 12 at 16) (citing In re Link-A-Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223-24 (Fed.Cir.2011)) According to ACI, GPH’s home turf is New York, because that is GPH’s principal place of business. While there are cases supporting ACI’s view that Delaware is not GPH’s “home turf,” there are likewise cases from this District in which a plaintiffs “home turf’ has been construed to include its state of incorporation, which here is Delaware. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d 744, 754 (D.Del.2012); Praxair, 2004 WL 883395, at *1-2 (<HOLDING>). The Court agrees with those cases that
holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center holding delaware is home turf as long as company is incorporated in delaware regardless of location of principal place of business holding  1332c does not apply to a domestically incorporated corporation with its principal place of business abroad holding that lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york based in part on lehman banks establishment of its home office in delaware