Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01801/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01801-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

U-Haul International, Inc., a Nevada

corporation; and eMove, Inc., a Nevada

corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Hire a Helper, LLC, a California limited

liability company; and Michael Glanz

and Amy Glanz, husband and wife,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1271-PHX-DGC

ORDER

eMove, Inc. provides an online marketplace for moving products and services. eMove

is a subsidiary of U-Haul International, Inc. (“U-Haul”). eMove has an exclusive license to

use U-Haul’s copyrighted material on the eMove.com website and U-Haul’s “Moving Help”

and “Moving Helper” trademarks. Michael and Amy Glanz are residents of California.

Michael Glanz contracted with eMove to become an eMove “Moving Helper” on July 21,

2005. Glanz subsequently formed Hire a Helper, LLC (“HH”) which, like eMove, makes

moving products and services available to customers through the Internet.

I. This Lawsuit.

Plaintiffs U-Haul and eMove filed a complaint against Defendants HH and Michael

and Amy Glanz on July 10, 2008. The complaint asserts six claims: federal trademark

infringement, copyright infringement, breach of contract, contributory and vicarious liability,

unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Dkt. #1. 

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 7
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

- 2 -

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper

venue and an alternative motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California.

Dkt. #13. A response and reply were filed (Dkt. ##23, 25) and a hearing was held on

September 4, 2008 (Dkt. #36). For reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court

granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Amy Glanz and denied the motion with respect

to Michael Glanz. The Court took under advisement the motion to dismiss with respect to

HH and the motion to transfer with respect to HH and Michael Glanz. For reasons explained

below, the Court will grant the motion to transfer and deny as moot the motion to dismiss

with respect to HH.

II. Motion to Transfer.

Defendants ask the Court to transfer this case to the Southern District of California

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. #14 at 16-18. The statute authorizes such a transfer

if the action could have been brought in the Southern District of California and “transfer is

warranted by the convenience of parties and witnesses and promotes the interests of justice.”

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). “[T]he purpose of [section 1404(a)] is to

prevent the waste of time, energy and money’ and to protect litigants and the public against

unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Id. (citation omitted).

The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Southern

District of California. The Court must determine whether Defendants have made “a strong

showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting [Plaintiffs’] choice of forum.” Decker Coal

Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). This determination

requires the weighing of several factors: (1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the relative

financial burdens, (3) the convenience of witnesses, (4) the availability of compulsory

process to compel unwilling witness attendance, (5) the availability of witnesses and their

live testimony at trial, (6) the ease of access to sources of proof, (7) relevant contacts with

the chosen forum, (8) jurisdiction over the parties, (9) the state most familiar with the

governing law, (10) the relevant public policy of the forum state, and (11) the existence of

any forum selection clause. See id.; Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 7
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

- 3 -

(9th Cir. 2000); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988).

A. The convenience of the parties and the relative financial burdens.

Plaintiffs’ principal place of business is Arizona, but U-Haul is a large, international

corporation doing business around the globe. HH, by contrast, is a small, newly-formed

California company with four employees. “The disruption of business affairs due to the time

and cost of distant litigation is far more severe and detrimental to a small [company] than it

is to a much larger corporation.” SRAM Corp. v. Sunrace Roots Enter. Co., 953 F. Supp.

257, 260 (N.D. Ill. 1997). This factor therefore weighs strongly in favor of transferring the

case to the Southern District of California. See id.; Library Publ’ns, Inc. v. Doubleday &

Co., Inc., 414 F. Supp. 1185, 1186 (E.D. Pa. 1976) (balance of convenience weighed in favor

of small corporation employing only five employees); 800-Flowers, Inc. v. Intercontinental

Florist, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 128, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (disparity between the relative means

of the two corporate parties favored transfer to district of smaller corporation); Citibank, N.A.

v. Affinity Processing Corp., 248 F. Supp. 2d 172, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (same).

B. The convenience of witnesses, the availability of compulsory process, and

the availability of live testimony.

“The convenience of witnesses is of utmost importance[.]” Kay v. Nat’l City Mortg.

Co., 494 F. Supp. 2d 845, 852 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Indeed, “the convenience of both party and

non-party ‘witnesses is probably the single-most important factor in the analysis of whether

transfer should be granted.’” Wagner v. N.Y. Marriot Marquis, 502 F. Supp. 2d 312, 315

(N.D.N.Y 2007) (citation omitted); see Pupo-Leyvas v. Bezy, No. CV 07-1032-PHX-SMM,

2008 WL 2026276, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 9, 2008). The “availability of process to compel the

testimony of important witnesses [also] is an important consideration in transfer motions.”

Arrow Elecs., Inc. v. Ducommun Inc., 724 F. Supp. 264, 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); see FUL Inc.

v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 204, 839 F. Supp. 1307, 1311 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“[W]itnesses outside

the subpoena power of the court[] weigh heavily in a transfer decision[.]”).

In this case, all of Defendants’ witnesses are located in Southern California, outside

the subpoena power of this Court. While the Court’s lack of a subpoena power may be

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 7
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

- 4 -

solved through the use of deposition testimony, “live testimony is preferred whenever

feasible.” Hess v. Gray, 85 F.R.D. 15, 25 (N.D. Ill. 1979); see Kay, 494 F. Supp. 2d at 853.

“[T]o fix the place of trial at a point where litigants cannot compel personal attendance and

may be forced to try their cases on deposition, is to create a condition not satisfactory to

court, jury, or most litigants.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 511 (1947); see

Chodock v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., No. CIV-05-1263PHXROS, 2005 WL 2994451, at *4

(D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2005) (forum where non-party witnesses will fall under a court’s subpoena

power is favored).

Moreover, Defendants’ witnesses are not employed by HH, while one-half of

Plaintiffs’ witnesses are employed by U-Haul. Plaintiffs thus could compel at least half of

their witnesses to travel to California for trial, while Defendants would have no power to

compel their witnesses to travel to Arizona. To the extent the parties could persuade

witnesses to travel by paying their expenses, Plaintiffs would again have the advantage by

virtue of their greater financial resources. See Berry v. Potter, No. CIV 04-2922 PHX RCB,

2006 WL 335841, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2006) (discounting inconvenience to party’s

employee-witnesses who could be compelled to testify); FUL, 839 F. Supp. at 1311 (“[I]t is

generally assumed that witnesses within the control of the party calling them, such as

employees, will appear voluntarily[.]”).

Because the majority of non-party witnesses “would either be unwilling,

inconvenienced or not subject to compulsory process” if the case is tried in Arizona,

the Court finds that these factors – the convenience of witnesses, the availability of

compulsory process, and the availability of live testimony – weigh strongly in favor of

transfer. Hess, 85 F.R.D. at 25; see Berry, 2006 WL 335841, at *6 (“[T]he Court concludes

that the convenience of the witnesses weighs heavily in favor of the transfer”); Arrow Elecs.,

724 F. Supp. at 267 (“The Court finds that the convenience of party and non-party witnesses,

and the fact [that] certain important non-party witnesses are not subject to process in this

District, weighs heavily in favor of transfer[.]”); Pupo-Leyvas, 2008 WL 2026276, at *4

(same).

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 4 of 7
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

- 5 -

C. The ease of access to sources of proof.

Documents relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims are located in both Arizona and California.

As explained above, however, witness testimony will be more accessible if the case is tried

in the Southern District of California. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.

D. Contacts with the chosen forum.

Defendants have had minimal contacts with Arizona. Mr. Glanz does not live or work

here and has visited the State only rarely and not in connection with the issues in this case.

HH is based in California, although its web-based services are available in Arizona and HH

derives 3% of its revenue from this State. Plaintiffs are headquartered here. 

Plaintiffs’ contacts in Arizona justify their choice of this forum, while Defendants

have had few Arizona contacts that would justify their being haled into court here. If this

factor favors Plaintiffs, it does so only slightly. 

E. Jurisdiction over the parties.

“When a lack of jurisdiction is likely, it is proper to transfer the action to a district

where the action could have been brought, and where the district court has personal

jurisdiction over the [d]efendants.” Forever Living Prods. U.S., Inc. v. Geyman, 471 F.

Supp. 2d 980, 984 (D. Ariz. 2006); see Sparling, 864 F.2d at 639; Kay, 494 F. Supp. 2d at

854. The Court already has found that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Amy Glanz. The

parties do not dispute that the Southern District of California would be able to exercise

personal jurisdiction over all parties. This factor therefore weighs in favor of transfer.

F. The state most familiar with the governing law and the relevant public

policy of the forum state.

These factors weigh against a transfer because Plaintiffs have asserted claims under

Arizona law and Arizona has a strong interest in ensuring that its citizens are compensated

for their injuries. See Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1333 (9th Cir. 1984).

G. The existence of a forum selection clause.

No forum selection clause exists with respect to HH. The contract between Michael

Glanz and eMove contains a forum selection clause designating Arizona as the exclusive

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 -

forum. Although “[f]orum selection clauses generally are given deference in determining

whether to transfer venue[, they] are not dispositive of a court’s decision on a motion to

transfer.” DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Gault S. Bay, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-425RM, 2007 WL

3407662, at *9 (N.D. Ind. Nov 13, 2007) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S.

22, 30-31 (1988)). “Even though the parties may have agreed to a forum selection clause,

this agreement is not determinative, but merely one factor to be thrown into the balance with

the other § 1404(a) factors.” Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing,

Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 751, 754 (E.D. Ky. 2005 Jones, 211 F.3d at 499 (finding that California

was the appropriate forum despite a forum selection clause designating Pennsylvania as the

exclusive forum). This factor is neutral with respect to Defendant HH, but weighs against

transfer as to Defendant Michael Glanz.

H. Consideration of all the factors.

Having considered each of the relevant factors, the Court concludes that this case

should be transferred to the Southern District of California. Six of eleven factors weigh in

favor of transfer, including the most important factors – the convenience of witnesses and

the availability of compulsory process. Moreover, unlike this District, all parties are subject

to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of California. The Court will therefore grant

Defendants’ motion to transfer. See Sparling, 864 F.2d at 639 (affirming district court’s

decision to transfer case to a more convenient district that could exercise personal jurisdiction

over all parties). Given this ruling, the Court will deny as moot the motion to dismiss with

respect to HH.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to transfer (Dkt. #13) is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a).

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #13) is granted with respect to Defendant

Amy Glanz, denied with respect to Defendant Michael Glanz, and denied as

moot with respect to Hire A Helper, LLC.

3. The hearing set for September 25, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. is vacated.

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

4. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Southern District of California.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-01801-H-NLS Document 39 Filed 09/23/08 Page 7 of 7