the fourth Baker factor supports applying the political question doctrine. 4. Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements In Alperin, the Ninth Circuit held that this factor did not apply because its suit was the “only game in town” and that the Executive had not been involved in any “negotiations, agreements, or settlements” regarding the matters before the court. 410 F.3d 532, 558. As with the fourth factor, the court noted that the State Department had not yet filed a statement of interest in the case. Id.See also Sarei, 221 F.Supp.2d at 1196-98 (applying the sixth Baker factor due, in part, to the filing of a statement of interest). Unlike Sarei, the Court finds that the instant case does not implicate the sixth Baker factor. See also In re Agent Orange, at 72 (<HOLDING>). While the State Department has made it clear
holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that the sixth baker factor did not apply because it raises issues that courts are structured and empowered to decide  the nature and applicability of substantive international law and domestic tort law holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases