for the District of Columbia, where the bulk of Carnegie’s research departments and its administration are headquartered. See, e.g., Loreto v. Cushman, 930 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2013). The Court will stay the transfer order for fourteen days in order to preserve Carnegie’s opportunity to waive objections to venue and personal jurisdiction, resulting in this suit remaining in this district. See Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1487-99; Wood, 705 F.2d at 1523. Additionally, although the Court appreciates the briefs provided by the parties regarding whether UMass is a necessary and indispensable party to this suit, the Court declines to rule on this issue, which is governed by regional circuit law, due to the pending transfer. See Muldoon v. Tropitone Furniture Co., 1 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur
holding that a partys repeated representations that venue was proper in one forum waived its right to bring a subsequent motion under 28 usc  1406a challenging venue holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391 holding that the laws of the transferee district are applicable in a case transferred pursuant to 28 usc  1406a holding plain statement rule applicable in habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to 28 usc  2254 holding that transfer most appropriate under 28 usc  1406a