With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is in dispute, and that the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the doctor's letter that the plaintiff submitted. However, there is evidence from the plaintiff himself that he cannot travel. Moreover, in light of all the important witnesses in Massachusetts, this court does not believe that further evidence regarding the plaintiff's condition is necessary before the motion to dismiss is decided. 6 . Defendant argues that the First Circuit’s opinion in Nowak “should be given no weight” in this court’s analysis because “the choice of law issue [in Nowak] was nothing more than an afterthought.” (Def. Reply at 1). This court disagrees; there is no basis to ignore or disregard the First Circuit’s analysis on this issue. See Reiser (UK) Ltd. v. Bryant, 494 F.Supp.2d 28, 32 (D.Mass.2007) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The parties are hereby advised that under

A: holding that the court has personal jurisdiction over siemens germany and that defendants failed to overcome the presumption in favor of plaintiffs choice of forum
B: holding that the fact that a canadian court would be more familiar with canadian law than a united states court  is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of plaintiffs chosen forum quoting nowak 94 f3d at 7201
C: holding that a domestic plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to more deference than a foreign plaintiffs
D: holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination
B.