Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2012cv00878/696774/25
Timestamp: 2018-03-19 11:22:39
Document Index: 669607203

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1441', '§ 8', '§ 1441', '§ 1391', '§ 1404']

ORDER granting 18 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue for World Resorts International LLC v. Interval International Incorporated et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court World Resorts International LLC v. Interval International Incorporated et al Filing 25
World Resorts International LLC v. Interval International Incorporated et al
ORDER granting 18 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Central District of California. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying 16 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice, denied as to the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) only and denying without prejudice 17 Specially Appearing Defendant Interval LeisureGroup, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 8/8/12.(LSP)
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 World Resorts International, LLC, Nevada limited liability company,, 10 a Plaintiff, 11 ORDER vs. 12 No. CV 12-00878-PHX-NVW 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, 13 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice 20 (Doc. 16), Specially Appearing Defendant Interval Leisure Group, Inc.’s Motion to 21 Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 17), and Defendants’ Motion 22 to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 18). Defendants move this 23 Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action on the basis that it was filed in an improper forum, or, 24 alternatively, for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. 25 dismissal, Defendants request this case be transferred to the Central District of California 26 as a more convenient forum. 27 28 In the alternative to 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 2 interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 3 division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all 4 parties have consented.” In order to determine whether a motion to transfer venue is 5 appropriate, the Court considers factors, including: 6 (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. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 28 -2 1 the other compelling reasons justifying transfer of venue. The Court will therefore grant 2 Defendants’ motion to transfer venue. 3 Also pending is Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which seeks dismissal of 4 Plaintiff’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue or, in the 5 alternative, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief 6 may be granted. Defendants’ argument under Rule 12(b)(3) is misplaced, as removed 7 cases are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), not the general venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 8 1391. See Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 665 (1953) (noting venue in 9 cases removed from state court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) rather than 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1391). Defendants’ motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) will therefore be denied 11 (Doc. 16). In any event, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to transfer venue, 12 obviating any concerns that Arizona is an improper venue for this action. Because the 13 Court will grant Defendants’ motion to transfer venue, it is more appropriate for the 14 California court to decide Defendants’ pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the 15 merits. 16 Finally, Specially Appearing Defendant Interval Leisure Group, Inc.’s Motion to 17 Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) is now moot. It will be 18 denied without prejudice to refiling a motion challenging the California court’s exercise 19 of personal jurisdiction over it. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 18) is granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer 22 this case to the Central District of California. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with 24 Prejudice (Doc. 16) is denied as to the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) 25 only. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Specially Appearing Defendant Interval Leisure 27 Group, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) is 28 -3 1 denied without prejudice to refiling a motion challenging the California court’s exercise 2 of personal jurisdiction over it. 3 Dated this 8th day of August, 2012. 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