The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
This case concerns a breach of an agreement for space in a St. Louis, Missouri building which provides facilities for web hosting services. Presently before the Court are defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or improper venue. In the alternative, two sets of defendants have moved to have this case transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri on forum non conveniens grounds.*fn1 For the reasons expressed below, defendants' motions for transfer will be granted.
In June 2007, plaintiff Axxa Commerce, LLC ("Axxa"), a New Jersey limited liability company with a principal place of business in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, was in need of additional physical space for its Internet web hosting and full web server management services. During that summer, Axxa communicated with a representative of defendants Bandwidth Exchange Buildings, LLC, BEB-210, LLC, and BEB-900, LLC (collectively "Bandwidth"), which, at that time, owned a building at 210 North Tucker Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri that provided telecom and data center space. In August 2007, Axxa and Bandwidth entered into a Rackspace License Agreement that gave Axxa a license to use certain space within the building. The agreement provided that in addition to granting Axxa a license to use certain space, the building owner would provide adequate power, air conditioning, fire suppression, lighting, security, and services to aid in cross-connect services to other licensees. The agreement was to commence on September 1, 2007 and last five years. Thereafter, the agreement was to automatically renew year-to-year. Shortly after Axxa entered into the agreement with Bandwidth, Bandwidth sold the building to defendant Digital Realty Trust, Inc., and assigned its leases to defendant Digital 210 Tucker, LLC (collectively "Digital").
In its complaint, Axxa claims that between September 2007 and December 2007, all of the defendants, including defendant Capstar*fn2, which provides leasing management services for the building, breached the agreement, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by failing to make the necessary improvements required by the agreement with regard to power, cooling, and fire suppression. Axxa also claims that defendants overcharged it for certain contractual items, as well as failed to deliver the premises in a timely manner (Axxa claims that defendants did not deliver the premises until December 2007). Because of this breach, Axxa claims that it lost millions of dollars due to lost profits, depreciation of hardware, employment of a product manager, and other costs relating to the delay.
Axxa also claims in its complaint that Bandwidth made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding its ability to make the improvements and deliver the premises on time, and that because of these misrepresentations, it was fraudulently induced to enter into the contract.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Axxa's claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. In the alternative, defendants have moved for the transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Missouri on forum non conveniens grounds. Axxa has opposed Bandwidth's and Digital's motions, but it has not opposed Capstar's.
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Axxa, a New Jersey limited liability company, sought out web hosting space in a building located in Missouri. It contracted to lease that space with Missouri companies, all of which at the time*fn3, and the individuals who comprise those companies, had no connection with New Jersey whatsoever, and it did so through an agent who lives in Missouri. All of the obligations under the agreement were to be performed in Missouri, all breaches Axxa alleges occurred in Missouri, and Missouri law by contract applied to any dispute. Despite Axxa's choice of forum in this Court, this case belongs in Missouri.
The Supreme Court has instructed that a district court may consider whether to dismiss or transfer*fn4 a case based on forum non conveniens grounds without having to address personal jurisdiction issues. Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 432 (2007) ("A district court... may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant."). This is because if personal jurisdiction involves an arduous inquiry, "and forum non conveniens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, the court properly takes the less burdensome course." Id. at 436.
Here, the determination of personal jurisdiction over the defendants involves a complicated analysis of the corporate structures of defendants, their obligations and liabilities to and for one another, the nature of electronic communications and whether they constitute purposeful availment to a particular state, and whether Axxa's tort claim provides a basis for personal jurisdiction. Indeed, several of these complicated issues are acknowledged by Axxa in its brief (see Pl. Opp. at 15, "[F]undamental questions remain regarding the nature of the transaction between Digital Realty and Digital 210 Tucker or other related entities."; "[There is a] complex of issues raised by the relationship between Digital Realty and Digital 210 Tucker...."; Pl. Opp. at 17, "Guller [the managing member and an owner of the Bandwidth entities] was the central figure in the Bandwidth/Digital Realty transaction and the Bandwidth/Axxa Transaction[, and] [t]he motivation underlying Guller's role as an intermediary and advocate in two parallel and interrelated transactions is unclear at this time."), and it accordingly requests discovery relating to jurisdiction (see Pl. Opp. at 18, "[I]t would be premature for this Court to rule on the jurisdictional questions without allowing jurisdictional discovery and appropriate fact-finding."). ...