NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge.
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff Archinaco/Bracken LLC ("Archinaco Bracken"), a law firm, and Defendants, James L. Dawson and his law firm Gates Eisenhart Dawson ("GED"), over the representation of an individual, Nathan Walsh, in a FINRA arbitration claim against Mr. Walsh's former employer and potential client referrals from Mr. Walsh. (Docket No. 1-2). The complaint alleges two counts: (1) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (2) intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. Id. ¶¶ 41-59.
Archinaco-Bracken filed this lawsuit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, on June 12, 2013, id. at 2-3, and Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to this Court on June 28, 2013. (Docket No. 1). Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), and, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Docket No. 7). This matter has been fully briefed by the parties, and the Court held a motion hearing on August 20, 2013. (Docket Nos. 7; 9-11; 13-15). After consideration of the parties' arguments, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion for the following reasons.
I. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff Archinaco Bracken is a law firm and a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with a registered address in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Docket No. 1-2 ¶ 1). Defendant James L. Dawson is an attorney and citizen of California, and Defendant GED is a law partnership with a principal place of business in San Jose, California. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. At all relevant times, Mr. Archinaco acted within his scope of employment with Archinaco Bracken, and Mr. Dawson acted within his scope of employment with GED. Id. ¶ 4.
Archinaco Bracken avers that on July 30, 2012, a potential client, Nathan Walsh, sought the assistance of Mr. Archinaco to pursue a cause of action against Jeffrey J. Powell, Polaris Equity Management, Inc., and Polaris Wealth Advisors, LLC. Id. at 5, 16-40. This action included claims for breach of contract, partnership, and joint venture; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; promissory estoppel; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; conversion; wrongful termination; and prima facie tort. Id. at 16-40. To formalize the representation, Mr. Walsh and Archinaco Bracken allegedly executed a contingency fee agreement on August 10, 2012, after which Archinaco Bracken claims that it advanced costs on Mr. Walsh's behalf, spent more than one hundred (100) hours representing him, and responded to more than one hundred (100) emails and phone calls from him. Id. ¶¶ 5-8.
Subsequently, on April 17, 2013, Archinaco Bracken purportedly filed a Statement of Claim with FINRA on behalf of Mr. Walsh, and on April 29, 2013, FINRA apparently advised Archinaco Bracken that FINRA may not have mandatory jurisdiction, which could require Mr. Walsh's matter to be filed in California state court. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Archinaco Bracken claims, however, that Mr. Walsh terminated Archinaco Bracken on May 24, 2013, allegedly before FINRA made a final determination and as Archinaco Bracken prepared to file a brief setting forth citations to FINRA's code to establish jurisdiction. Id. ¶¶ 11, 33.
Meanwhile, on April 30, 2013, Mr. Archinaco, ostensibly at the request of Mr. Walsh, had spoken with Mr. Dawson about the possibility of Mr. Dawson participating in the case on an apparently local counsel basis only. Id. ¶ 16. Mr. Archinaco and Mr. Dawson purportedly agreed that Mr. Walsh's attorney fees would not increase, but that Archinaco Bracken would supposedly partially share with Mr. Dawson any fees from the case. Id. ¶ 19. Mr. Archinaco avers that he did not authorize Mr. Dawson to speak with Mr. Walsh ex parte or negotiate with Mr. Walsh directly, and that Mr. Dawson knew that Archinaco Bracken represented Mr. Walsh. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Mr. Dawson then apparently requested and received from Mr. Archinaco a copy of Archinaco Bracken's work product, which included Archinaco Bracken's Statement of Claim, consisting of twenty-five (25) pages, one-hundred sixty (160) paragraphs, and nine (9) counts, to get up to speed on the case. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. After providing Mr. Dawson with the Statement of Claim, Archinaco Bracken seemingly continued to work on the FINRA jurisdictional issue, speaking with FINRA numerous times. Id. ¶ 25.
Mr. Dawson, however, allegedly engaged in ex parte communications with Mr. Walsh, began to represent him, and convinced him to enter into an agreement with GED and to terminate Archinaco Bracken. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. According to Archinaco Bracken, on May 23, 2013, after Mr. Archinaco sent Mr. Walsh an email, Mr. Dawson responded, indicating that Mr. Walsh had terminated Archinaco Bracken and instructing the cessation of all work. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Later that day, Mr. Dawson ostensibly emailed Mr. Archinaco to advise that Mr. Archinaco was "entitled to the reasonable value of [his] services. Please forward whatever [he has] which indicates the amount of time that [he has] spent on this matter...." Id. ¶ 31. The next day, Mr. Walsh apparently authorized Archinaco Bracken to release his client file to Mr. Dawson. Id. ¶ 32. Mr. Walsh also sent an email indicating that he "wanted to thank [Mr. Archinaco] with [his] utmost gratitude for [Archinaco Bracken's] assistance in [his] legal matter. [Mr. Archinaco's] counsel has meant a great deal to [him]...." Id. ¶ 33. Mr. Archinaco then provided Mr. Dawson with a transition memo on the file. Id. ¶ 34.
In addition, supposedly in response to Mr. Dawson's email requesting the reasonable value of services rendered, Mr. Archinaco provided GED with an invoice for $56, 680.80, which encompassed his firm's attorneys' fees and costs as advanced on Mr. Walsh's behalf. Id. ¶ 36. Mr. Dawson, however, allegedly responded by personally attacking Mr. Archinaco, accusing him of engaging in criminal conduct for sending the invoice, and sharing this accusation with Mr. Walsh. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. Archinaco Bracken avers that previously, Mr. Walsh had referred a potential client to Mr. Archinaco during the course of his representation of Mr. Walsh. Id. ¶ 39. Archinaco Bracken now claims injury from an existing and a prospective contractual relationship with Mr. Walsh and any future referrals. Id. ¶¶ 39-40, 43-49, 52-56.
Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 2013, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, or in the alternative, a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Docket No. 7). The Court addresses each issue, in turn.
A. Personal Jurisdiction
The Court first addresses the issue of personal jurisdiction over Defendants. "To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction over the moving defendants." Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004). "Although the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the facts that establish personal jurisdiction, in reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), we must accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true and construe disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff." Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 368 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Mellon Bank (East) PSFS Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992); Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 142 n.1 (3d Cir. 1992)). "[W]hen the court does not hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss, the ...