acts occurred in New York at the April 1998 meeting, or at a later date-perhaps even at Ballard’s Utah offices-such considerations seem less important given the nature of this particular case. In any event, in cases where no forum is wholly convenient (or wholly obvious), a forum selection clause can and should tip the scales. Pascalides, 1 e clearest of standards, all of the traditional factors are at play here. Transfer, rather than dismissal provides all parties with an opportunity for a speedy resolution of the matter. Transfer prevents Plaintiff from facing unnecessary statute of limitation issues, and lastly, transfer rather than dismissal provides for a more efficient use of judicial resources. See Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466-67, 82 S.Ct. 913, 8 L.Ed.2d 39(1962)(<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this
holding that purpose of transfer is that of removing whatever obstacles may impede an expeditious and orderly adjudication of cases and controversies on their merits holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court holding that a motion for a summary judgment is an appropriate means of seeking an adjudication on the merits holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits