are conclusory, and that the Court need not credit it. The Court disagrees. Although there is certainly legal significance to the alleged extension, Plaintiff is still pleading a factual assertion: that the Minister of Hacienda extended the Notes' maturity dates. 29 . This is not to say that a forum non conveniens analysis will never lend itself to interlocutory appeal. Defendants cite a number of cases in which district courts, in their discretion, determined that such an analysis was appropriate for interlocutory review. In this case, however, the Court's analysis balanced a variety of fact-intensive factors, making it difficult to isolate a concrete controlling legal issue. See In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prod. Liab. Litig., 212 F.Supp.2d 903, 906 (S.D.Ind.2002) (<HOLDING>). 30 . At best, Defendants contend that the
holding that a court can dismiss a case under forum non conveniens before resolving any other jurisdictional issues holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction