Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00878/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00878-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

World Resorts International, LLC, a 

Nevada limited liability company,, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Interval International, Inc., a Florida 

corporation; Interval Leisure Group, Inc., a 

Delaware corporation; Trading Places 

International, LLC, a California limited 

liability company; Worldwide Vacation & 

Travel, Inc., a Florida corporation, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-00878-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice 

(Doc. 16), Specially Appearing Defendant Interval Leisure Group, Inc.’s Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 17), and Defendants’ Motion 

to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 18). Defendants move this 

Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action on the basis that it was filed in an improper forum, or, 

alternatively, for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. In the alternative to 

dismissal, Defendants request this case be transferred to the Central District of California 

as a more convenient forum. 

Case 2:12-cv-00878-NVW Document 25 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 

division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all 

parties have consented.” In order to determine whether a motion to transfer venue is 

appropriate, the Court considers factors, including: 

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were 

negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar 

with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) 

the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the 

contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen 

forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two 

forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel 

attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease 

of access to sources of proof. 

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). While Plaintiff’s 

choice of forum should be given deference, the “interest of justice factor is the most 

important of all.” Conte v. Ginsey Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 3095019 (D. Ariz. 2012) 

(quoting Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1261 (W. D. Wash.2005)). 

Ultimately, the Court has the “discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to 

an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones, 211 

F.3d at 498. 

Here, the relevant factors weigh largely in favor of transferring venue. First, the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses favors transfer to California: the majority of 

Defendants, many of the witnesses, and some of Plaintiff’s members are all located in 

California. Because the pertinent witnesses are located mainly outside the subpoena 

power of the District of Arizona, transfer to California will facilitate the efficiency and 

fairness of this litigation. Further, California is the locus of the events and transactions 

underlying this litigation, and is the place where the majority of the meetings between the 

parties took place. Plaintiff appears to have selected Arizona as the forum for this lawsuit 

because its lawyer and two of its members are located here. This fact does not outweigh 

Case 2:12-cv-00878-NVW Document 25 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the other compelling reasons justifying transfer of venue. The Court will therefore grant 

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue. 

Also pending is Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which seeks dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue or, in the 

alternative, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. Defendants’ argument under Rule 12(b)(3) is misplaced, as removed 

cases are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), not the general venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 

1391. See Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 665 (1953) (noting venue in 

cases removed from state court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) rather than 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391). Defendants’ motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) will therefore be denied 

(Doc. 16). In any event, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to transfer venue, 

obviating any concerns that Arizona is an improper venue for this action. Because the 

Court will grant Defendants’ motion to transfer venue, it is more appropriate for the 

California court to decide Defendants’ pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the 

merits. 

Finally, Specially Appearing Defendant Interval Leisure Group, Inc.’s Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) is now moot. It will be 

denied without prejudice to refiling a motion challenging the California court’s exercise 

of personal jurisdiction over it. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 18) is granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer 

this case to the Central District of California. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with 

Prejudice (Doc. 16) is denied as to the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) 

only. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Specially Appearing Defendant Interval Leisure 

Group, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) is 

Case 2:12-cv-00878-NVW Document 25 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

denied without prejudice to refiling a motion challenging the California court’s exercise 

of personal jurisdiction over it. 

Dated this 8th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00878-NVW Document 25 Filed 08/08/12 Page 4 of 4