Opinion
No. 05-2445-PHX-ROS.
April 27, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Griselda Moran's Motion to Change Venue. Plaintiff requests that this case be transferred to the Western District of Washington. For the following reasons, the Motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her suit in the District of Arizona on August 15, 2005. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff later sought a entry of default. (Doc. 5) The Clerk entered default judgment but that judgment was set aside after a request to do so by Defendant Qwest Communications Corporation. (Doc. 13) On March 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Change Venue. (Doc. 17) In that Motion, Plaintiff argues that her relocation to Seattle, Washington means litigating this case in Arizona will be a "substantial burden" on her. (Doc. 17) Defendant opposes the transfer and claims that Arizona is the more appropriate venue in light "all of the witnesses and most of the relevant documents [being] located in Arizona." (Doc. 23)
ANALYSIS
A motion for change of venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute states that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, 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." This transfer statute was meant "to prevent the waste of `time, energy and money' and `to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'" Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1960)). "As the party requesting the transfer, [Plaintiff] bear[s] the burden of proving that [the Western District of Washington] is the more appropriate forum for the action." Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1043 (D. Ariz. 2004); see also Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (moving party has the burden of showing that the balance of convenience weighs heavily in favor of transfer).Pursuant to the transfer statute, a party seeking transfer must meet two requirements. First, that the suit might have been brought in the proposed transferee district. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960). Second, transfer must be for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses and in the interest of justice. See Gunther-Renker Fitness, L.L.C. v. Icon Health Fitness, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 264, 269 (C.D. Cal 1998). The Ninth Circuit has provided a number of factors a court should consider when evaluating the second requirement. Jones v. GNC Franchising, 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). Those factors are
(1) the location where the relevant [events took place], (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the cost of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.Id. Because the parties seem to concede that this suit could have originally been brought in Washington, the Court will focus on the issue of convenience and the Jones factors.
The Jones factors favor keeping this litigation in Arizona. First, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she was the victim of unlawful employment practices. All of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims took place in Arizona. Second, the majority of Plaintiff's complaint is based on federal employment laws, meaning a Washington court would be equally capable of hearing those claims. But Plaintiff's complaint also contains an Arizona tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This Court routinely applies Arizona law and is likely more familiar with Arizona law than the Washington court. Third, Plaintiff initially chose to litigate this matter in Arizona. Ordinarily, Plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded "great weight." Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). But the forum that is entitled to deference is Plaintiff's initial choice of forum, not a choice made later during the course of the litigation. Fourth, both parties have significantly more contact with Arizona than Washington. All of Plaintiff's complaints stem from action taken in Arizona and at the time the suit was filed both parties were present in Arizona. The only contact with Washington relevant to this suit is that Plaintiff now resides in Washington. Finally, litigating this case in Washington would be more difficult and costly due to all of the potential witnesses, other than Plaintiff, residing in Arizona and most of the relevant documents being in Arizona. None of the factors favor transferring this case to Washington and the motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 17) is DENIED.