United States District Court, D. Arizona
PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
Plaintiffs are Texmo Oil Company Jobbers, Inc., and 4-D Investments, Inc., dba GASCARD, both Arizona corporations. Defendants are Y Travel, LLC, a Nevada limited liability corporation; David Jin, a Nevada resident; and the DY Trust, a Nevada trust. On December 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint alleging breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment, and breach of guaranty. (Doc. 5.)
Texmo is a provider of petroleum products both by direct delivery to a client and through its GASCARD fueling network. Defendant Y Travel operates a bus charter service that provides charter services for views of the Grand Canyon from its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The first amended complaint alleges that on or about September 14, 2011, Y Travel applied for credit with Texmo. ( Id., ¶ 12.) The Application for Credit was personally guaranteed by Defendant Jin, who was then the managing member of Y Travel. ( Id., ¶ 13.) The Application was approved, and Texmo and its affiliate GASCARD extended credit to Y Travel. ( Id., ¶ 14.)
Y Travel's chartered buses entered Arizona and often refueled at the Plaintiffs' GASCARD station in Kingman, Arizona. Texmo delivered petroleum products directly to Y Travel at a location in Meadview, Arizona. ( Id., ¶¶ 15-16.)
According to the first amended complaint, in early 2013 Y Travel started missing payments it had agreed to make under the Application for Credit. ( Id., ¶ 18.) On October 10, 2013, Plaintiffs sent a demand for payment to Y Travel at its corporate offices in Las Vegas, Nevada. Y Travel failed to pay the amounts owing. ( Id., ¶ 19.)
Plaintiffs allege that as of the date of the first amended complaint there remained a balance owing from Y Travel to Texmo of not less than $82, 785.99, and a balance owing from Y Travel to GASCARD of not less than $115, 058.95. ( Id., ¶¶ 20-21.)
Defendants move to dismiss the case for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 18.) Alternatively, Defendants request the Court to transfer the action to the United States Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). ( Id. )
A. Venue is proper in Arizona
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
Defendants assert that none of the three criteria set forth in § 1391(b) applies. Specifically, Defendants contend that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims did not occur in Arizona. Instead, according to Defendants, "[t]he majority of the fuel delivered to Y-Travel was delivered within Nevada and all of the major transactions between the parties occurred in Nevada." (Doc. 18 at 5.) Defendants also cite litigation between the parties in Nevada: a case filed in state court on August 7, 2013, in which Y Travel ...