Daisley v. Blizzard Music Limited (US) et al

Filing 20

ORDER directing Defendants to supplement their ECF No. 8 Motion to Transfer Venue by 2/6/2017. Plaintiff's response due by 2/13/2017. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 1/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ROBERT DAISLEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BLIZZARD MUSIC LIMITED (US) and )
JOHN MICHAEL OSBOURNE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_________________________________ )

3:16-cv-00519-HDM-WGC
ORDER

17
Before the court is the defendants’ motion to transfer
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF No. 8).

Plaintiff Robert

19
Daisley (“plaintiff”) has opposed (ECF No. 14), and defendants have
20
replied (ECF No. 16).
21
The court may transfer venue to any district “where it might
22
have been brought” for “the convenience of parties and witnesses,
23
in the interest of justice.”

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

“Transfer is

24
appropriate when the moving party shows: (1) venue is proper in the
25
transferor district court; (2) the transferee district court has
26
personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject matter
27
jurisdiction over the claims; and (3) transfer will serve the
28
1

1

convenience of the parties and witnesses, and will promote the

2

interests of justice.”

3

Supp. 2d 1121, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

4

factors in determining whether transfer is appropriate: (1) the

5

location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and

6

executed; (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing

7

law; (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (4) the respective

8

parties’ contacts with the forum; (5) the contacts relating to

9

plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum; (6) the

Pfeiffer v. Himax Techs., Inc., 530 F.
The court must weigh several

10

differences in the cost of litigation in the two forums; (7) the

11

availability of compulsory process to compel witnesses; and (8) the

12

ease of access to sources of proof.

13

Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

Jones v. GNC Franchising,

14

Having considered the parties’ pleadings and the relevant

15

factors above, the court concludes that the parties should provide

16

the court with additional argument and evidence specifically

17

directed to whether the Central District of California court would

18

have personal jurisdiction over defendant Blizzard US and subject

19

matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.

20

defendants are hereby ordered to supplement their motion to

21

transfer venue on or before February 6, 2017, to address the above

22

factors.

23

response.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff shall have until February 13, 2017, to file any

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: This 27th day of January, 2017.

26
27

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2