the D.C. Circuit have looked to the place where the statements at issue were “formulated and transmitted.” See In re APA Assessment Fee Litig., 766 F.3d at 54; Washkoviak, 900 A.2d at 181. Here, neither the Complaint nor the parties have suggested any place where the NAHB conceived of any misrepresentation or any place from which it transmitted misstatements through telephone calls or emails. However, the Complaint does allege that NAHB maintains its principal place of business in Washington, D.C., Compl. ¶ 9, and it is therefore reasonable to infer that NAHB either formu lated or transmitted some- or all of the representations from there. As a result, the Court finds that this factor weighs at least moderately in favor of D.C. law. See In re APA Assessment Fee Litig., 766 F.3d at 54 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted). The third
holding that second factor weighs at least moderately towards dc law given that neither side has suggested any other location where the conduct could have occurred and complaint alleged only that defendants had their principal place of business in washington dc and that significant events giving rise to this case took place in this district holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes holding that the location of the events at issue favored neither side despite the fact that the defendants initiated and primarily conducted their investment fraud scheme from nevada because the criminal activity that was alleged to have occurred in this case was national and even international in scope and had ties to both new york and las vegas holding that as neither complaint nor answer gave date on which alleged conversions took place judgment on pleadings was improper holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center