receiving medical treatment in the United States, evidence and testimony being easily accessible in this forum, and counsel for both parties being based in this forum, the fact that United States limitation law applies also weighs against dismissal. See, e.g., Argonaut P’ship, 1997 WL 45521, at *15 (stating that “courts have denied forum non conveniens motions where a related action, requiring much of the same evidence, was pending also in the jurisdiction and could not be dismissed”); Maritima Aragua, 823 F.Supp. at 147 (denying a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens and stating that the “crucial factor in the case at bar [was] the presence of the Limitation Proceeding brought by the [shipowners]”); id. at 150-51; see also Am. President Lines, 890 F.Supp. at 318 (<HOLDING>); Geophysical Serv., 590 F.Supp. at 1357, 1361
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 court can dismiss a case under forum non conveniens before resolving any other jurisdictional issues 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 holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens did not compel dismissal of related actions for limitation of vessel owners liability