more convenient for defendants to litigate in this Court than in Washington State Superior Court for Snohomish County because this Court is closer to “SeaTae Airport and Oakland, California, where Leaver resides.” (Dkt. # 7 at 9). However, this is not the kind of inconvenience courts envision when examining this factor. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir.1990) (finding this factor “unhelpful” where one party claimed abstention was proper because the federal court was 200 miles further away than the state court). Furthermore, this factor is typically argued by the party seeking abstention by asserting that the federal forum is inconvenient, not by the party opposing abstention. See Evanston Ins. Co. v. Jimco, Inc., 844 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Here, the short distance between this Court
holding that the adequacy of the state forum is relevant only when it would disfavor abstention holding that the question is not whether the party opposing abstention can demonstrate that the federal forum is a better or more convenient forum but whether the inconvenience of the federal forum is so great that this factor points towards abstention holding that extreme delay in the alternative forum can render that forum inadequate recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts