Opinion
Case No. 02-2080-JWL.
April 15, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed suit in state court to recover benefits under a disability policy issued by defendant. Defendant thereafter removed the action to this court alleging federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 502(e)(1) of ERISA. Upon removal, defendant designated Topeka, Kansas as the place of trial. See D. Kan. R. 40.2 ("The removing party, at the time of filing the notice of removal . . . shall also file a designation of place of trial."). This matter is now before the court on plaintiff's motion for an order designating the place of trial as Kansas City, Kansas (doc. #6). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is granted.
In her motion, plaintiff requests that the trial take place in Kansas City, Kansas as she lives in Wyandotte County (a county in Kansas City, Kansas) and as most of the individuals she expects to call as witnesses at trial are located in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Plaintiff further asserts that the only connection this case has to Topeka is the location of defense counsel. In response to plaintiff's motion, defendant contends only that the location of plaintiff's witnesses is irrelevant as plaintiff is not entitled to call witnesses in any event. Chambers v. Family Health Plan Corp., 100 F.3d 818, 823-24 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Sandoval v. Aetna Life Cas. Ins. Co., 967 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1992)) (review of decision to deny claim for benefits generally confined to the administrative record). Defendant asserts, then, that plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to change the defendant's designation of place of trial. In essence, defendant suggests that a presumption exists in favor of its designation and that the burden is on plaintiff to show that defendant's forum is inconvenient or otherwise inappropriate. As will be explained, the court disagrees with defendant.
The court begins its analysis with Local Rule 81.1 which mandates that when a case is removed from the District Court of Wyandotte County (as this case was) it must be removed to the federal district court sitting in Kansas City, Kansas. See D. Kan. R. 81.1(b). In that regard, the local rule is consistent with the notion that a plaintiff's choice of forum should be respected and rarely disturbed. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 265-66 (1981) (there is ordinarily a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum). Under Local Rule 81.1(b), then, there is a presumption in favor of hearing the case in Kansas City, Kansas, the plaintiff's chosen forum, and defendant's designation is akin to a request for intradistrict transfer. See Cache, Inc. v. Scitech Med. Prods., Inc., No. 89-4028-R, 1990 WL 41407, at *2 (D.Kan. Mar. 19, 1990) (requiring plaintiff to designate Topeka as place of trial after removal is a "needless formality" when plaintiff filed case in Shawnee County, Kansas and local rule mandated removal to federal district court in Topeka, plaintiff's obvious choice of forum; defendant's designation upon removal treated as request for intradistrict transfer and denied).
In considering a request for intradistrict transfer, the court looks to the factors relevant to change of venue motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Lavin v. Lithibar Co., No. 01-2174-JWL, 2001 WL 1175096, at *1 (D.Kan. Sept. 19, 2001) (collecting cases). Such factors include the plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience for witnesses, the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, the possibility of obtaining a fair trial, and "all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical." Id. (quoting Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515-16 (10th Cir. 1991)). The party seeking to transfer the case has the burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient. Id. (citing Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992)).
As the court acknowledged in Lavin, § 1404(a) is "inapplicable on its face because Kansas constitutes only one judicial district and division. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) does provide that `[a] district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.'" Lavin, No. 01-2174-JWL, 2001 WL 1175096, at *1 n. 1.
Defendant has simply not met its burden of showing that Kansas City is an inconvenient place for trial. In fact, defendant does not even suggest that Kansas City is an inconvenient forum. It asserts only that its designation should be honored and that plaintiff has offered no reasons sufficient to change defendant's designation. Of course, the court has rejected defendant's suggestion that a presumption exists in favor of its choice of forum and has rejected defendant's attempt to shift the burden to plaintiff to show that defendant's forum is inconvenient. Moreover, as defendant concedes that neither witness considerations nor fair trial considerations are relevant to the resolution of plaintiff's motion, the only remaining relevant factor under the § 1404(a) analysis is the plaintiff's choice of forum.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the case should be heard in Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff's motion is granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff's motion for an order designating the place of trial as Kansas City, Kansas (doc. #6) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.