Realty Executives International Services LLC v. Brokers Holdings LLC, 2:17-cv-00213

Plaintiff Realty Executives International Services, LLC (Arizona LLC) sued Brokers Holdings LLC (Utah LLC) in Arizona state court for tortious interference related to a Stock Purchase Agreement involving FJM Corporation (Nevada) and Intermountain Region, LLC (Nevada).
Defendant removed the case to federal court in Arizona and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Plaintiff had earlier filed a related lawsuit in the District of Nevada asserting tortious interference based on overlapping facts and the same Stock Purchase Agreement; that Nevada action was filed months before the Arizona action and remains pending.
Both parties conceded the case could have been filed in Nevada and that Nevada is a proper venue; defendant did not dispute Nevada’s jurisdiction.
The Arizona court applied the § 1404(a) transfer analysis (including Ninth Circuit factors from Jones) and weighed factors such as location of negotiation, contacts with the forum, witness convenience, duplication of proceedings, and access to proof.
The Court concluded most factors favored transfer (or were neutral), noting risk of duplicative litigation and that the Nevada court was willing to accept consolidation, and ordered prompt transfer to the District of Nevada.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer to District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is warranted	Plaintiff did not dispute Nevada as proper venue but emphasized Arizona harms and its location; argued contacts with Arizona justify forum	Transfer warranted because key transactions, parties, witnesses, and documents are tied to Nevada and a prior related Nevada action exists	Transfer granted; majority of factors favor or are neutral and Nevada is more convenient and avoids duplicative litigation
Location where agreement was negotiated/executed	Harm occurred in Arizona	Agreement involves Nevada corporation and Nevada LLC members; transaction negotiated/executed in Nevada	Factors weigh heavily for transfer
Choice of law / state law familiarity	Claim should be governed by Arizona law (but differences minimal)	Nevada law is likely most relevant given parties and transaction	Neutral/slightly favors transfer
Convenience of witnesses & duplication of proceedings	Some witnesses in Nevada but Plaintiff located in Arizona; contended neutrality	Overlap with pending Nevada case means witnesses would already appear in Nevada; transfer avoids dual testifying and duplication	Weighed in favor of transfer

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant bears strong burden to show inconvenience to overcome plaintiff’s forum choice)
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets Ninth Circuit factors for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff’s home forum choice generally entitled to substantial weight)