Summary
denying transfer as premature when discovery not complete
Summary of this case from Dawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION Case No. 08-2493-KHV.
December 15, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Kimberly Renee Skar filed suit alleging that her former employer, Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Determine Wichita As Place Of Trial (Doc. #5) filed November 19, 2008. For reasons stated below, defendant's motion is overruled.
In her response, plaintiff states that she has filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). She states that once the EEOC issues a right to sue letter, she anticipates seeking leave of Court to amend her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. See Plaintiff Skar's Response To Defendant's Motion To Determine Wichita As Place Of Trial (Doc. #9) filed December 3, 2008 at 1.
Legal Standards
D. Kan. Rule 40.2 provides that "[t]he court shall not be bound by the requests for place of trial but may, upon motion by a party, or in its discretion determine the place of trial." In considering motions for intra-district transfer, the courts of this district have generally looked to the factors relevant to change of venue motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Bauer v. City of De Soto, Ks., No. 04-4027-JAR, 2004 WL 2580790, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 3, 2004);Hartwick v. Lodge 70 Int'l, No. 99-4139-SAC, 2000 WL 970670, at *1 (D. Kan. June 16, 2000) (citing Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 896 F. Supp. 1063, 1064 (D. Kan. 1995)). In evaluating a transfer under Section 1404(a), the Court considers plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of 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." Hartwick, 2000 WL 970670, at *1 (quoting Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515-16 (10th Cir. 1991)). Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the movant the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Id. (citing Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotations and citations omitted)). Furthermore, except for the most compelling reasons, cases are generally not transferred between cities.Bauer, 2004 WL 2580790, at *1. The moving party bears the burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient. Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "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." The Court recognizes that the statute is inapplicable on its face as Kansas comprises only one judicial district and division. The statute provides, however, that "[a] district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c).
Factual Background
Spirit is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and company headquarters in Kansas. Plaintiff resides near Wichita in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Plaintiff formerly worked for Spirit at its manufacturing plant in Wichita. Plaintiff alleges that Spirit terminated her employment on the basis of race. In the complaint, plaintiff designated Kansas City as the place of trial. See Complaint (Doc. #1) at 1-4. In its motion Spirit asks the Court to determine Wichita as the place of trial.Analysis
Spirit argues that trial should be in Wichita because plaintiff and the majority of witnesses reside there. Plaintiff responds that it is premature to determine where witnesses reside because the parties have not yet exchanged witness lists, and that Spirit has not shown that Kansas City is an inconvenient forum.
I. Plaintiff's Choice Of Forum
Plaintiff's choice of forum ordinarily is entitled to great deference. Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965. Spirit correctly points out that where plaintiff's choice of forum is not her residence, that consideration carries much less weight. Wichita Investors, LLC v. Wichita Shopping Ctr. Assocs., No. 02-2186-CM, 2002 WL 1998206, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2002) (citing Ervin Assocs., Inc. v. Cisneros, 939 F. Supp. 793, 799 (D. Colo. 1996)); see Spires v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., No. 06-2137-JWL, 2006 WL 1642701, at *2 (D. Kan. June 8, 2006) (when plaintiff does not reside in chosen forum, rationale for allowing plaintiff to dictate forum evaporates). The fact that plaintiff does not reside in Kansas City, however, does not compel a transfer to Wichita.
II. Convenience Of The Witnesses And Accessibility Of The Witnesses And Other Sources Of Proof
III. Fair Trial
See EEOC v. Newman Univ. 2006 WL 23566see also Biglow v. Boeing Co.174 F. Supp.2d 11871195 Aramburu See896 F. Supp at 1064
IV. Other Considerations
Spirit contends that a trial in Wichita would make the most efficient use of the Court's time and that of jurors. Specifically, Spirit asserts that trial in Wichita would eliminate logistical problems with witnesses traveling three hours to Kansas City. As noted, however, the Court cannot determine the residence of the witnesses at this time.
Plaintiff asserts that the EEOC may decide to become a party to this case. Plaintiff notes that the EEOC's only Kansas office is in Kansas City, and asserts that Kansas City would therefore be a convenient forum for the EEOC. As of now, however, the EEOC is not a party.
Although Spirit has set forth a reasonable argument for transfer, on this record the Court cannot conclude that the balance of factors outweighs plaintiff's choice of forum. The Court therefore overrules defendant's motion.
Plaintiff's counsel is located near Kansas City, while defendant's counsel is located in Wichita. Defendant correctly notes that the location of counsel is given little if any weight.See Studdard v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 291, 292 (D. Kan. 1992); see, e.g., Aramburu, 896 F. Supp. at 1063 (location of plaintiff's counsel in Topeka not sufficient to support trying case in Topeka when witnesses and evidence located in Wichita).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.'s Motion to Determine Wichita As Place Of Trial (Doc. #5) filed November 19, 2008, be and hereby is OVERRULED.