Opinion
Case No. 04-4027-JAR.
November 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL
This case comes before the Court on defendant's motion for a determination of place of trial (Doc. 10), seeking a determination that the trial of this case be held in Kansas City, Kansas. This action was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, designating Topeka, Kansas as the place of trial. Defendant requests that the trial be held in Kansas City, Kansas rather than Topeka, because "Kansas City, Kansas is the most convenient place for trial for all parties and potential witnesses concerned." For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies defendant's motion.
Under Local Rule 40.2, "[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." When considering requests for intra-district transfer, the court looks to the factors relevant to change of venue motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). While, on its face, § 1404 appears inapplicable as Kansas constitutes only one judicial district and division, § 1404(c) provides that "[a] district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending." However, cases are generally not transferred between cities except for the most compelling reasons.
D. Kan. R. 40.2.
Lavin v. The Lithibar Co., No. 01-2174-JWL, 2001 W L 1175096, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 19, 2001); Wiggans v. Hartford Life Accident Ins. Co., No. 02-2080-JWL, 2002 W L 731701, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2002).
Lavin, 2001 WL 1175096, at *1 n. 1.
See, e.g., Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992).
Turning to the § 1404(a) analysis, a district court should consider 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, difficulties that may arise from congested dockets, and "all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical." The burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient lies with the moving party.
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515-16 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. 1957)).
Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965 (citing Chrysler Credit Corp., 928 F.2d at 1515).
Defendant has not met the burden of proving that Topeka is an inconvenient site for trial. Defendant failed to provide the Court with a list of witnesses whose location would make the drive to Topeka inconvenient, stating only that the potential witnesses reside in DeSoto, Kansas. Defendant alleges that its attorneys are located in the Kansas City area; plaintiff resides in Spring Hill, Kansas; defendant resides in DeSoto, Kansas; and the events which are the subject of this action occurred in DeSoto, Kansas. Defendant states that the only connection to Topeka is that plaintiff's attorney is located there.
DeSoto, Kansas is not substantially closer to either Topeka or Kansas City, Kansas. DeSoto is about 28 miles from the Kansas City, Kansas courthouse and about 43 miles from the Topeka courthouse, making the difference in the drives for the DeSoto witnesses only about 15 miles. Considering that the court gives deference to plaintiff's choice of forum and the fact that convenience for the witnesses is only one factor for the court to consider, the Court finds that this is not a compelling argument that the case should be moved to Kansas City.
See e.g. www.mapquest.com; www.randmcnally.com.
A transfer to Kansas City would result in inefficiency and delay. There would be increased delay in terms of fitting this trial into the calendar in Kansas City, which is as busy as Topeka's. The difference in convenience between traveling to Topeka as opposed to Kansas City is minimal for defendant and its attorneys considering the totality of the factors examined under § 1404(a). The Court concludes that defendant's request to move the trial to Kansas City, Kansas is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for determination of place of trial (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.