Motion to Transfer

Motion to Transfer

What Is A Motion To Transfer?

A motion to transfer is a request to transfer the case to another district or county because the original venue is improper under the relevant venue rules or because of local bias. Title 28, Section 1404(a) of the United States Code states a motion to transfer venue may be granted when the transfer is convenient for all parties and witnesses to a venue where the action may have been brought. A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to order a transfer. The convenience of witnesses is weighed heavily in deciding whether to transfer venue or not.

In the Amazon cases, courts have granted motions when the transfer would be a more convenient venue than the original venue. A motion to transfer may be denied if the transfer is not valid and there are sufficient contacts within the original forum. Transfer may be granted when it is in the best interest of justice.

A motion to transfer is filed prior to the start of litigation of a case when a defendant wishes to change the venue of the trial to a different location. The Federal Rule for change of venue allows for the “convenience of parties and witnesses,” and “in the interest of justice,” a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.1

Motions to transfer are often brought in cases involving Amazon. Policies set forth by Amazon usually contain agreements requiring parties to consent forum selection clauses.2 Courts typically enforce these agreements because their clear language implicates that the clause is binding.3 Motions to transfer also arise in Amazon cases where the parties argue that another forum may be more convenient for litigation.4 Because Amazon’s business is so extensive, the differences in forum selection can heavily influence a case due to factors such as cost, travel, and availability of both evidence and witnesses.5


. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

  1. Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:13CV2547 HEA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24421 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 2015).
  2. Id.
  3. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-04561-EJD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69281 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2015).

 

  • Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:13CV2547 HEA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24421 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 2015).

The Plaintiff, Appistry, Inc. brought suit against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., for infringement of the following patents: the ‘746 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,746) and the “209 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,341,209). Defendants moved to transfer this action to the Western District of Washington based on a forum-selection clause contained in a “clickwrap” agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Amazon.com.

  • Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38855 (W.D. Wash. 2005).

This is a patent infringement case involving four software patents held by plaintiffs Amazon.com and A9.com, the assignee of one of the four patents at issue here. The plaintiffs alleged patent infringement via the company websites of defendants Cendant Corporation and its subsidiaries Trilegiant, Orbitz, Budget Rent-a-Car (“Budget”), and Avis Rent-a-Car Systems (“Avis”).  The court granted the motion to transfer venues because the motion promoted the most convenience for the parties.

Get in Touch

100 W. Park Ave. Long Beach, NY 11561

Attorney Advertising

The information provided on this website is not intended to be legal advice and does not create an attorney/client relationship. Internet subscribers are advised not to take any action based upon the material in this website without first consulting C.J. Rosenbaum or other legal counsel. We are not responsible for the accuracy of any information contained on any sites linked to ours. This website may be considered lawyer advertising by the State of New York.

Amazon Sellers' Lawyer
Long Beach, NY 11561
Phone: 1-877-9-Seller