Pepa v. Northern Terrace Homeowners Association

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ben Pepa,
Plaintiff,
v.
Northern Terrace Homeowners Association,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-04049-PHX-KML
ORDER
On November 13, 2025, the court ordered plaintiff Ben Papa, defendant Northern
Terrace Homeowners Association (“NTHOA”), and non-party GoDaddy.com, LLC to file
supplemental briefs addressing certain threshold issues, including whether this case should
be transferred to the District of Nevada. (Doc. 13.) Pepa and NTHOA filed briefs, but
GoDaddy did not. Having reviewed the supplemental briefs, transfer to the District of
Nevada is appropriate.
The court outlined the relevant facts in its November 13 order. In brief, sometime
in 2022 plaintiff Ben Pepa registered the domain name <northernterrace.vegas>. GoDaddy
is the registrar of that domain name and GoDaddy’s principal office is in Arizona. In
August 2025, NTHOA initiated an administrative proceeding seeking to gain ownership of
the domain name. The complaint NTHOA filed in that administrative proceeding identified
the “mutual jurisdiction” where it would “submit, with respect to any challenges to a
decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name.”
(Doc. 15-1 at 9.) NTHOA selected the “mutual jurisdiction” of “the location of the
Case 2:25-cv-04049-KML Document 17 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
principal office of the concerned registrar,” i.e. Arizona. (Doc. 15-1 at 9.)
On October 13, 2025, the administrative panel issued a decision transferring the
domain name to NTHOA. GoDaddy informed Pepa it would implement the decision in ten
days unless it received notice that Pepa had initiated suit in the “mutual jurisdiction”
NTHOA had selected. On October 24, 2025, Pepa informed GoDaddy he had “commenced
a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court [for] the District of Nevada.” (Doc. 11-
2 at 4.) GoDaddy indicated that suit was not sufficient to prevent transfer because it had
not been filed in the applicable “mutual jurisdiction.” (Doc. 11-2 at 2.) That prompted Pepa
to file this suit, which is identical to the Nevada suit. Pepa explains he filed suit in Arizona
solely to ensure GoDaddy did not transfer the domain name pending entry of a final
judgment resolving the disputes between Pepa and NTHOA.
Almost two weeks after filing his complaint in this court, Pepa filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Doc. 11.) That motion sought an
order prohibiting GoDaddy from transferring the domain name. (Doc. 11 at 14.) The court
called for supplemental briefing from the parties and GoDaddy. The court was particularly
interested in hearing from GoDaddy whether it would comply with orders issued by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. (Doc. 13 at 4.) GoDaddy received a copy of
the court’s order but opted to ignore it. (Doc. 14.)
In the supplemental briefing, Pepa asks the court to transfer this case to Nevada
while NTHOA requests the court dismiss this case as duplicative of the Nevada case. (Doc.
15 at 3; Doc. 16 at 7-8.) GoDaddy’s refusal to file a supplemental brief supports
transferring this case to Nevada, not dismissing it. In re Bozic, 888 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th
Cir. 2018) (first-to-file rule allows court to transfer, stay, or dismiss second action). The
only reason Pepa filed the present suit was because GoDaddy claimed filing suit in Arizona
was necessary to prevent transfer of the domain name. GoDaddy refused to explain that
position but assuming it was necessary for Pepa to file suit in Arizona to prevent transfer,
that purpose has been accomplished. There is no need for additional proceedings in Arizona
and transferring this case to Nevada—where the evidence and witnesses are located—is
Case 2:25-cv-04049-KML Document 17 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
appropriate. Cf. Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A transfer
under § 1404(a) results in a change of courtrooms, not a change of law.”).
The court takes no action on the pending motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. The Nevada court will be in the best position to determine whether
there is any need for early injunctive relief.
IT IS ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada and close the current case.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04049-KML Document 17 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3