Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00155/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00155-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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 1

 For a discussion of the 1-800 number issue, see Doc. 59.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Electronic Payment Systems, LLC, 

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0155-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendant Electronic Payment Systems, LLC’s (“EPS”)

Motion to Transfer Related Case (Doc. 72). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies

Defendant’s motion.

This case was initiated by Plaintiff seeking vacatur of an arbitration award. On

October 22, 2009, this Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

affirmed the arbitration award in its entirety. On May 4, 2010, this Court amended its

previous judgment and denied Plaintiff’s request to vacate the judgment under Rules 59(e)

and 60(b), and file a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d). On May 14, Plaintiff filed a

separate action seeking declaratory relief concerning the 1-800 number issue.1

 The

declaratory relief action is currently pending before Judge Campbell. Defendant now seeks

to have the declaratory relief action transferred to the undersigned.

Case 2:09-cv-00155-JAT Document 79 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Defendant argues that transfer is proper under LRCiv. 42.1 because the interests of

judicial economy would best be served by having undersigned preside over the declaratory

relief action. LRCiv. 42.1(a)(1) provides:

Any party may file a motion to transfer the case or cases

involved to a single Judge whenever two or more cases are

pending before different Judges and any party believes that such

cases: (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event;

(2) involve substantially the same parties or property; (3)

involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright; (4) calls for

determination of substantially the same questions of law; or (5)

for any other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor

if heard by different Judges.

(emphasis added).

The Court does not believe there are two cases pending within the meaning of LRCiv.

42.1. This Court entered final judgment in the original action. Although there are postjudgment motions pending in the original action, such motions pertain only to enforcement

of the judgment and prejudgment interest. Defendant has not cited the Court to any case that

would support the conclusion that, within these circumstances, the original action is still

“pending.” As such, the Court finds that transfer under the present circumstances is not

countenanced by LRCiv. 42.1.

In any event, the Court does not find that the interests of judicial economy are best

served by transferring the declaratory relief action to the undersigned. The original action

involved only whether the arbitration award should be vacated. Although the 1-800 number

issue was raised in a post-judgment motion, the Court did not have occasion to substantively

resolve the issue, as the Court was presented only with the issue of whether Rules 59 or 60

permitted an amended or supplemental complaint. Because the 1-800 number issue presents

a different legal analysis than vacatur of the arbitration award, the Court does not believe that

the interests of judicial economy are best served by transferring the declaratory judgment

action to the undersigned.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Electronic Payment Systems, LLC’s (“EPS”)

Motion to Transfer Related Case (Doc. 72) is denied.

Case 2:09-cv-00155-JAT Document 79 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this

Order in Judge Campbell’s case, CV 10-1060-PHX-DGC (re: Doc. 10).

DATED this 13th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00155-JAT Document 79 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 3