World Resorts International LLC v. Interval International Incorporated et al
Filing
25
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?