has never been required to appear before the Court in person. It was only after Defendant repeatedly failed to make appearances and respond to orders that the Court re-entered his default. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor does not weigh in Defendant’s favor. Looking at the third factor, Plaintiffs claims arise under federal law. Thus, there is no potential conflict with another state’s laws or regulations. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff. Turning to the fourth factor, Plaintiff is headquartered in California. California courts, including this Court, have a strong interest in protecting California citizens and domestic businesses from the wrongful acts of nonresident defendants. Figi Graphics, Inc. v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 33 F.Supp.2d 1263, 1268 (S.D.Cal.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this factor weighs in Plaintiffs
holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents holding that personal jurisdiction in california was appropriate over nonresident journalist where harmful effects of allegedly defamatory article would be exclusively felt in california and california was the state of newspapers greatest circulation recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired