Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01639/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

Control ESI, Inc. d/b/a Softwrench

Solutions, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

University of Denver, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-01639-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On September 19, 2012, the University of Denver (“DU”) filed a motion to 

transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Control ESI, Inc. d/b/a SoftWrench Solutions (“SoftWrench”) 

has filed a response (Doc. 29) and DU has filed a reply (Doc. 32). For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will grant the motion.1

I. Background. 

Evolved Systems, Inc. d/b/a Supply & Service (“Supply & Service”) was an 

Arizona corporation that provided implementation and hosting of facilities management 

services. Doc. 1 at 2. As part of those services, Supply & Service would sell licenses to 

use a computer software product called Maximo, a product that was acquired by IBM in 

2006. Doc. 1 at 3. In June 2005, DU and Supply & Service entered into an agreement 

 

1

 The request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:12-cv-01639-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/18/12 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 

for assessment of DU’s software needs, implementation of the new software, on-site 

training for users, and ongoing technical support services. Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 29-2. As 

part of the arrangement, DU purchased licenses to use the Maximo product at its Denver 

campus from Supply & Service. Doc. 1 at 3. 

 In 2007, SoftWrench, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 

in Columbus, Ohio, acquired Supply & Service. Doc. 1 at 2, 4, 6. Although it did not 

assume all of that company’s liabilities, it continued to provide services pursuant to the 

DU contract. Id. In March 2011, IBM informed both parties that it had conducted an 

audit and concluded that some of the licenses had been used in an unauthorized manner. 

Doc. 1 at 2, 4-5. 

 SoftWrench claims it was directed to negotiate with IBM on DU’s behalf. Doc. 1 

at 5. DU disputes that claim. Doc. 22 at 4. SoftWrench settled with IBM and sent DU 

an invoice in the amount of $701,590 for reimbursement. Doc. 1 at 1. After DU disputed 

its liability to reimburse SoftWrench under the terms of their agreement, SoftWrench 

initiated this suit to enforce its interpretation of the contract. Id. DU now moves to 

transfer the case to the District of Colorado and SoftWrench objects. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of the 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.” The Court has discretion “to adjudicate 

motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of 

convenience and fairness.’” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th 

Cir.2000). In Jones, the Ninth Circuit provided the following list of non-exclusive 

factors to consider: 

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state that is most familiar 

with the governing law; (3) the plaintiffs 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 

Case 2:12-cv-01639-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/18/12 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 

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. 

Id. at 498–99. DU has the burden of demonstrating that transfer is appropriate, see Piper 

Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255–256 (1981), and “must make a strong showing 

of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum,” Decker Coal Co. v. 

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

III. Analysis.

 After considering all of the relevant factors, the Court will grant DU’s motion to 

transfer. With respect to factors one and two, the agreement at issue in this case provides 

that it “is executed and intended to be performed in the State of Colorado and the laws of 

the State of Colorado shall govern its interpretation and effect.” Doc. 29-2 at 19. 

Although this is a choice of law clause and not a choice of forum clause, the District 

Court in Colorado clearly is more familiar with Colorado law than this Court. 

 SoftWrench focuses on factors three, four, five, and eight. It argues that many of 

the employees of the original servicing company are Arizona residents and that the 

hosting facilities in Arizona will be important sources of proof. It further contends that 

DU reached out to the Arizona forum when it sought services from Supply & Service, 

and that ultimately DU has not made “a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant 

upsetting [Plaintiff’s] choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). 

 SoftWrench’s arguments are unpersuasive. While “a court should not lightly 

disturb a plaintiff’s choice of forum,” Holder Corp v. The Main Street Distrib., Inc.. No. 

CV-86-1285-PHX-RCB, 1987 WL 14339, at *8 (D. Ariz. Jan. 16, 1987), the choice is 

given less deference when the plaintiff is not a resident of the forum. Reaves v. Cable 

One, Inc., No. CV-11-00469-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 5331695, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 

2011) (citing Pupo-Leyvas v. Bezy, No. CV-07-1032-PHX-SMM, 2008 WL 2026276 at 

*5 (D. Ariz. May 9, 2008)). Supply & Service was an Arizona corporation, but it has 

since been purchased by SoftWrench, which is incorporated in Delaware and has its 

Case 2:12-cv-01639-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/18/12 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 

principal place of business in Ohio. Furthermore, while relevant witnesses may reside in 

Arizona, the substance of the dispute does not arise from the hosting services provided in 

Arizona but from the manner in which the software was used in Denver, Colorado. Some 

of the Arizona employees may be called to testify about the scope and terms of the 

agreement, but the relevant agreement was executed and intended to be performed in the 

State of Colorado. 

 A significant factor is the cost of litigation and the relative congestion of the 

courts’ dockets. The docket of the District Court in Colorado is less congested than this 

Court’s. Doc. 22 at 12. In 2011, the median time to dispose of a civil lawsuit in this 

Court was 8 months, whereas in the District of Colorado the median time was 5.7 

months. Id. (citing Judicial Business of the United States Courts, 2011 Annual Report of 

the Director Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, Director, Table C-5, http://www.uscourts.gov/ 

statistics/JudicialBusiness.aspx). This case can expect a speedier resolution in the 

District of Colorado, a fact that will reduce litigation costs for both parties. Leyvas, 2008 

WL 2026276 at *5; see also Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir. 

1984). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Defendant’s motion to transfer venue (Doc. 22) is granted.

2. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to transfer this case to the District 

 Court for the District of Colorado. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01639-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/18/12 Page 4 of 4