• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Case5:14-cv-05484-EJD Document31 Filed01/30/15 Page1 of 31 1 WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ([email protected]) 2 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20015 3 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 4 JOHN F. COVE, JR. #212213 5 ([email protected]) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 6 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612 7 Telephone: (510) 874-1000; Fax: (510) 874-1460 8 RICHARD J. POCKER #114441 (Admission to N.D. Cal. pending) 9 ([email protected]) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 10 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV 89101 11 Telephone: (702) 382 7300; Fax: (702) 382 2755 12 DONALD J. CAMPBELL (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) ([email protected]) 13 J. COLBY WILLIAMS (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) ([email protected]) 14 CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 15 700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540 16 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting 17 Championship and UFC OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA OAKLAND, 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP LLP & FLEXNER SCHILLER BOIES, 20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION 21 Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, on behalf Case No. 5:14-cv-05484 EJD 22 of themselves and all others similarly situated, DEFENDANT ZUFFA, LLC’S 23 Plaintiffs, CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF MOTION v. AND MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 24 UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting 25 Championship and UFC, Date: May 7, 2015 26 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendant. Place: Courtroom 4 27 Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila 28 Zuffa’s Not. Mot. & Mot to Transfer Venue Case Nos. 5:14-cv-05484 EJD; 5:14-cv-05591 EJD; 5:14-cv-05621 EJD Case5:14-cv-05484-EJD Document31 Filed01/30/15 Page2 of 31 1 Luis Javier Vazquez and Dennis Lloyd Case No. 5:14-cv-05591 EJD Hallman, on behalf of themselves and all 2 others similarly situated, 3 Plaintiffs, 4 v. 5 Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting 6 Championship and UFC, 7 Defendant. 8 Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza, on behalf of Case No. 5:14-cv-05621 EJD 9 themselves and all others similarly situated, 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting 13 Championship and UFC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA OAKLAND, 18 19 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP LLP & FLEXNER SCHILLER BOIES, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Zuffa’s Not. Mot. & Mot to Transfer Venue Case Nos. 5:14-cv-05484 EJD; 5:14-cv-05591 EJD; 5:14-cv-05621 EJD Case5:14-cv-05484-EJD Document31 Filed01/30/15 Page3 of 31 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 7, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as 3 this matter may be heard, Defendant Zuffa, LLC will and hereby does move this Court for an 4 order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) transferring these actions to the United States District 5 Court for the District of Nevada. The hearing will be conducted before the Hon. Edward J. 6 Davila, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, in Courtroom 4 7 of the San Jose Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. 8 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the supporting Memorandum 9 of Points and Authorities and accompanying declaration, the complete files and records of these 10 actions, and all other matters and arguments as may come before this Court, including those 11 raised in connection with reply briefing and oral argument relating to this motion. 12 Dated: January 30, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, 13 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 14 15 By: /s/ William A. Isaacson 16 William A. Isaacson Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a 17 Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA OAKLAND, 18 19 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP LLP & FLEXNER SCHILLER BOIES, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Zuffa’s Not. Mot. & Mot to Transfer Venue Case Nos. 5:14-cv-05484 EJD; 5:14-cv-05591 EJD; 5:14-cv-05621 EJD Case5:14-cv-05484-EJD Document31 Filed01/30/15 Page4 of 31 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ................................................................... 1 3 II. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 III. FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 4 A. The Complaints ....................................................................................................... 3 5 B. The Parties ............................................................................................................... 3 6 C. Allegedly Anticompetitive Agreements Between Plaintiffs and Zuffa ................... 4 D. Alleged Exclusionary Conduct as to Third Parties in Nevada ................................ 6 7 E. Competitors Based in Nevada ................................................................................. 6 8 F. Other Non-Parties .................................................................................................... 7 9 IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7 A. The District of Nevada Is An Appropriate Forum Because Plaintiffs’ 10 Actions Could Have Been Brought There. .............................................................. 7 11 B. Forum Selection Clauses That Plaintiffs Agreed To Require Transfer Of These Cases To The District of Nevada. ................................................................. 8 12 1. Forum selection clauses must be enforced. ..................................................... 8 13 2. Plaintiffs’ claims fall within the scope of the forum selection clauses to which they agreed. ....................................................................................... 9 14 C. The Convenience and Fairness Factors in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Those Articulated by the Ninth Circuit Support Transfer to the District of 15 Nevada. .................................................................................................................. 15 16 1. The District of Nevada is a more convenient venue for the parties. ............. 16 2. The District of Nevada is a more convenient venue for witnesses. ............... 17 17 3. Nevada has a greater local interest because the relevant agreements OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA OAKLAND, 18 were made in Nevada. ................................................................................... 20 4. Nevada courts are more familiar with the law governing the 19 interpretation of the challenged contracts. ..................................................... 20 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP LLP & FLEXNER SCHILLER BOIES, 20 5. Because these are putative class actions with almost no connection to this District brought by non-resident Plaintiffs, their choice of 21 forum is entitled to little weight. ................................................................... 21 6. The parties’ respective contacts with these districts weigh heavily in 22 favor of transfer to the District of Nevada. .................................................... 22 23 7. There are few meaningful contacts between Plaintiffs’ cause of action and the Northern District of California. .............................................. 22 24 8. The difference in the cost of litigation favors transfer to the District of Nevada. ...................................................................................................... 22 25 9. The avoidance of counterclaims favors transfer to the District of 26 Nevada. .......................................................................................................... 23 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24 27 28 i Zuffa’s Not. Mot. & Mot to Transfer Venue Case Nos. 5:14-cv-05484 EJD 5:14-cv-05591 EJD; 5:14-cv-05621 EJD Case5:14-cv-05484-EJD Document31 Filed01/30/15 Page5 of 31 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 4 Arreola v. Finish Line, No. 14-CV-03339-LHK, 2014 WL 6982571 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) .................................... 16 5 Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 6 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) ......................................................................................................... 1, 9, 21 7 Bense v. Interstate Battery Sys. Of Am., 683 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1982) ....................................................................................................... 10 8 Cont'l Grain Co. v. The FBL–585, 9 364 U.S. 19 (1960) ..................................................................................................................... 15 10 Coors Brewing Co. v. Molson Breweries, 11 51 F.3d 1511 (10th Cir. 1995).................................................................................................... 11 12 Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009)...................................................................................................... 9 13 Guimei v. Gen. Elec. Co., 14 172 Cal. App. 4th 689 (2009) .................................................................................................... 20 15 Hawkes v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 16 No. CV-10-05957-EJD, 2012 WL 506569 (N.D. Cal. Feb 15, 2012) .......................... 16, 17, 20 17 Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960) ....................................................................................................................

Load more

  31

Copy Link