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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

HAVE A NICE LIFE, INC., )

) No. C06-0601RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

) MOTION TO TRANSFER

HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., )

)

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on “Home Box Office, Inc.’s Motion for

Transfer of Venue.” Dkt. # 5. In its complaint, plaintiff seeks a declaration that its use of the

domain name “sexandthecity.com” is not a violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer

Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) and injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of the disputed

domain name to defendant. An almost identical suit is pending in the Eastern District of

Virginia where the same parties are disputing the use and ownership of the domain name

“sexinthecity.com.” The suits were filed in Washington and Virginia in accordance with the

permissive jurisdictional provision of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

(“UDRP”) Rule 1(a). Neither party resides in Washington or Virginia: the only connection to

these states is the location of the domain name registrars.

Defendant requests that this case be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses,

Case 2:06-cv-00601-RSL Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Consolidate and Transfer Venue” in the Virginia action on May 8,

2006. That motion was denied on June 2, 2006, “for reasons stated from the Bench.” Have A Nice Life,

Inc. v. Home Box Office, Inc., C06-0480 TSE/TRJ at Dkt. # 10. 

The parties both agree that this action could have been brought in Virginia because defendant is

subject to personal jurisdiction there and all federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases

arising under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER -2-

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.”1

 Defendant has the burden of showing that the

overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice, weighs in favor of

transferring the above-captioned case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Virginia. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

Section 1404(a) is the statutory equivalent of the common law doctrine of forum

non conveniens where the alternative forum is within the territory of the United States. Ravelo

Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2000). “[T]he central focus of the forum non

conveniens inquiry is convenience . . . .” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 248-49

(1981). Generally, “a plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. However, when an

alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would

‘establish . . . oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant . . . out of all proportion to plaintiff’s

convenience,’ or when the ‘chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting

the court’s own administrative and legal problems,’ the court may, in the exercise of its sound

discretion, dismiss the case.” Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. a 241 (citations omitted). 

Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted in this

matter as well as the motion to consolidate and transfer venue that plaintiff filed in the Eastern

District of Virginia, the Court finds that neither of the two venues is particularly convenient for

plaintiff. These suits were initiated in Washington and Virginia only because UDRP Rule 1(a)

provides for jurisdiction in those states, not because any parties, witnesses, or documents are

located there. According to the complaint, Have a Nice Life is a Florida corporation with its

Case 2:06-cv-00601-RSL Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 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

2

 Although it appears that one of plaintiff’s shareholders and directors lives in Australia, his

location is not particularly relevant given that Have a Nice Life is the owner of the disputed domain

names. Mr. Kotcher’s contention that Have a Nice Life does not have any offices or employees in

Florida is inconsistent with the representations plaintiff has made during the last two months to the

Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of Washington, the Florida Department of State,

Division of Corporations, and plaintiff’s customers.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER -3-

principal place of business in Florida.2 Whether this case is tried in Virginia or Washington,

plaintiff will be required to travel significant distances in order to participate in court

proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Virginia would be a slightly more convenient

venue because it is within the same time zone as Florida, thereby avoiding the difficulties in

travel and communications caused by a three-hour time delay. The same analysis applies to

defendant, which is a New York corporation. The private interest analysis is inconclusive,

however, because this slight preference for Virginia is counterbalanced by plaintiff’s rule-based

choice of Washington as the situs of this litigation.

There being neither manifest oppression nor any evidence that Washington is more

convenient for the witnesses or the parties, the Court turns to the public’s interests. As

recognized by plaintiff, the purposes of § 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste of time, energy and

money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and

expense.” Dkt. # 3 at 14 (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal

quotation marks omitted)). Now that the district court in Virginia has denied plaintiff’s motion

to consolidate and transfer, the only means by which to avoid the duplication of evidentiary and

judicial processes and to reduce the corresponding financial burdens on the public courts and the

parties is to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Virginia. Such a transfer will promote

judicial efficiency and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts with virtually no adverse effects on

the private interests of the parties. 

Case 2:06-cv-00601-RSL Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER -4-

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s request for a transfer is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this matter to the United States District of the Eastern

District of Virginia as related to Have A Nice Life, Inc. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 

C06-0480 TSE/TRJ.

DATED this 16th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00601-RSL Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 4 of 4