Opinion
Case No. 06-2130-KHV.
October 12, 2007
ORDER
This matter comes before the court upon Defendant's Motion to Determine Wichita as Place of Trial (Doc. 38). Plaintiff filed a timely response (Doc. 40), to which defendant has replied (Doc. 42). Therefore, the issues are ripe for disposition.
I. Background
II. Legal Standard
42 U.S.C. § 2000eet seq. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 28 U.S.C. § 140428 U.S.C. § 1404
Aramburu v. The Boeing Company, 896 F. Supp. 1063, 1064 (D. Kan. 1995).
The party seeking transfer has the burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient. Advancing the opportunity for a case-by-case review of convenience and fairness, Section 1404(a) affords a district court broad discretion in deciding a motion to transfer. In evaluating a transfer under Section 1404(a), the Court considers plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience for witnesses, the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, the relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial, and "all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical."
Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992).
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991).
Taher v. Wichita State Univ., No. 06-2131, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29139, at *9 (D. Kan. Apr. 18, 2007). See also Jones v. Wichita State Univ., No. 06-2132, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29185, at *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 19, 2007).
III. Analysis
A. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
Defendant notes that plaintiff does not reside in Kansas City. Rather, she resides in Sedgwick County, Kansas, where defendant proposes to transfer the case for further proceedings. Generally, unless the balance weighs strongly in favor of transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum is not disturbed. But because that rule turns on the assumption that the plaintiff resides in the chosen forum, it is largely inapplicable if, as here, the plaintiff does not reside there. Although the Court considers plaintiff's choice of forum as a factor, "it is not a significantly more weighty factor than any of the other factors considered here, particularly when the forum's connection to the case is obscure and the forum's connection to the plaintiff is even more so." Therefore, the court gives less weight to plaintiff's choice of forum as she is not a resident of the Kansas City area.
Id.
Spires v. Hospital Corp. of Am., No. 06-2137, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37878, at *5-6 (D. Kan. June 8, 2006).
Id. at *3.
B. Convenience and Accessibility of the Witnesses
When comparing the convenience and accessibility for witnesses testifying in Kansas City or Wichita, the court notes that Wichita is the more logical place for trial. As the courts in this district have emphasized, the relative convenience of the forum is a primary, if not the most important, factor to consider in deciding a motion to transfer. With this in mind, the Court notes that most, if not all, of the witnesses, parties, and attorneys reside in Wichita. By contrast, none reside in Kansas City. With absolutely no connection to Kansas City, there is little difficulty in finding that Wichita is a more convenient forum for this case.
Id. (citing Meek Associates, Inc., v. First Union Ins. Group, 99-2519-CM, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 555, 2001 WL 58839, *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2001) (Convenience of the non-pary witnesses is the most important factor to be considered.").
The court must find that Kansas City is substantially inconvenient, not just that Wichita is marginally more convenient. This finding is easily met when considering the forum of Kansas City for all parties and their witnesses. This case involves plaintiff's employment at Quivira Council, Boy Scouts of America, Inc., an organization based in Wichita. All witnesses, including the parties, and all sources of proof currently are located in Wichita. Thus, witnesses and documentation will be much less accessible in Kansas City. Further, all witnesses will be substantially inconvenienced if required to travel three hours one-way from Wichita to Kansas City to testify at trial. Some witnesses may even be required to stay overnight. Therefore, the court finds that the convenience and accessibility of witnesses weights in favor of conducting a trial in Wichita.
Taher, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29139, at *6.
C. Fair Trial
Plaintiff contends that it is unclear whether she may receive a fair trial in Wichita as defendant is an established employer with a reputation in Wichita. Plaintiff requests she be allowed to scientifically test the community attitude and present the court with evidence regarding a fair trial. Defendant counters that there are no obstacles to a fair trial in Wichita and that any concerns regarding a fair trial can be addressed during voir dire of prospective jurors. The court agrees with defendant's position as there are no facts that suggest an adequate jury pool cannot be found in Wichita.
D. Other Considerations
Defendant argues that all other considerations weigh in favor of a trial in Wichita. She asserts that trial in Wichita will minimize delays in calling witnesses, and thus make more efficient use of jurors' and court time. Defendant also argues that counsel for all parties is located in Wichita. Plaintiff notes that counsel for both plaintiff and defendant operate Kansas City law offices as well as Wichita offices.
The court agrees that trial in Wichita will minimize delays in calling witnesses, and thus make more efficient use of jurors' and court time. Any argument regarding convenience of counsel is given little weight, if any.
See Aramburu, 896 F. Supp. at 1063 (location of plaintiff's counsel in Topeka was not sufficient to support trying case in Topeka when witnesses and evidence were located in Wichita).
The court notes that the district judge to whom this case currently is assigned is located in Kansas City; thus, the convenience of the court weighs in favor of a trial in Kansas City.
Considering all factors, the court finds that defendant has set forth a strong case for transfer. The court concludes that the balance of factors strongly outweighs plaintiff's choice of forum. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Determine Wichita as Place of Trial (Doc. 38) is granted and from this date forward, the place of docketing, maintenance and trial of the above captioned case shall be in Wichita, Kansas.