The factors enumerated in Great Northern Ry. Co. (1978) 12 
         Cal.App.3d 105, 113-115 [90 Cal.Rptr. 461, 466-467] are: 

         1. The amenability of the defendant to personal jurisdiction in 
         the alternative forum. 

         2. The relative convenience to the parties and witnesses. 

         3. The differences in conflict of law rules applicable in this 
         state and in the alternative forum. 

         4. The principal place of business of the defendant. 

         5. Whether the situation, transaction or events out of which the 
         action arose exists, occurred in, or had a substantial 
         relationship to this state. 

         6. Whether any party would be substantially disadvantaged in 
         having to try the action (a) in this state or (b) in the forum in 
         which the moving party asserts it ought to be tried. 

         7. Whether any judgment entered in the action would be 
         enforceable by process issued or other enforcement proceedings 
         undertaken in this state. 

         8. Whether witnesses would be inconvenienced if the action were 
         prosecuted (a) in this state or (b) in the forum in which the 
         moving party asserts it ought to be prosecuted. 

         9. The relative expense to the parties of maintaining the action 
         (a) in this state and (b) in the state in which the moving party 
         asserts the action ought to be prosecuted. 

         10. Whether a view of premises by the trier of fact will or might 
         be necessary or helpful in deciding the case. 

         11. Whether prosecution of the action will or may place a burden 
         on the courts of this state which is unfair, inequitable or 
         disproportionate in view of the relationship of the parties or of 
         the cause of action to this state. 

         12. Whether the parties participating in the action have a 
         relationship to this state which imposes upon them an obligation 
         to participate in judicial proceedings in the courts of this 
         state. 

         13. The interest, if any, of this state in providing a forum for 
         some or all of the parties to the action. 

         14. The interest, if any, of this state in regulating the 
         situation or conduct involved. 

         15. The avoidance of multiplicity of actions and inconsistent 
         adjudications. 

         16. The relative ease of access to sources of proof. 

         17. The availability of compulsory process for attendance of 
         witnesses. 

         18. The relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial. 

         19. The public interest in the case. 

         20. Whether administrative difficulties and other inconveniences 
         from crowded calendars and congested courts are more probable in 
         the jurisdiction chosen by plaintiff. 

         21. Whether imposition of jury duty is imposed upon a community 
         having no relation to the litigation. 

         22. The injustice to, and burden on, local courts and taxpayers. 

         23. The difficulties and inconvenience to defendant, to the 
         court, and to jurors hearing the case, attending presentation of 
         testimony by depositions. 

         24. Availability of the forum claimed to be more appropriate. 

         25. The other practical considerations that make trial of a case 
         convenient, expeditious and inexpensive.