GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP SCOTT EDELMAN, SBN ...

Case 2:10-cv-04420-SJO-JC Document 17 Filed 08/20/10 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:3331 See Sparling v. Hoffman Co nstr. Co., 864 F.2d 635,639 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding2 transfer was proper).3 The NBC Defendants bear the burden of establishing that transfer is4 appropriate. Saleh v. Titan, Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2005).5 The NBC Defendants have met this burden because transfer would avoid duplicative6 litigation, the majority of the parties and witnesses are on the East Coast, and7 New York law should govern the parties' dispute.8910111213141516171819202122232425262728A. This Action Might Have Been Brought Initially In the SouthernDistrict of New York.This is a diversity case. Therefore, it may have been brought in either: (1) ajudicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the samestate; or (2) in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissionsgiving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject ofthe action is situated. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Here, all defendants are either New Yorkcorporations or have their principal place of business in New York. In the alternative,a substantial part of the events giving rise to DONE's claims occurred in New York,including the engagement of the sales broker for the domain name(s) and the allegedacceptance of DONE's offer to buy the domain name(s). Thus, the Southern Districtof New York is a proper venue for this action.B. The Convenience of Witnesses and Parties Strongly Favors Transferto the Southern District of New York.The convenience of the witnesses and litigants is often the most importantfactor in the analysis of a discretionary transfer. Arete Power, Inc. v. Beacon PowerCorp., No. C 07-5167 WDB, 2008 WL 508477, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22,2008). Inbalancing the convenience of witnesses, "courts must consider not only the number ofwitnesses, but also the nature and quality of their testimony." Metz v. u.s. Life Ins.Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (noting that convenience of nonpartywitnesses is most important).Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP9