Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02669-ZLW-CBS.
April 16, 2008
ORDER
The matter before the Court is Defendant's Motion To Transfer Case To Grand Junction, CO, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c). Defendant requests that this action be transferred to the Grand Junction jury division of this Court for purposes of trial. Courts look to the factors developed under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) concerning venue transfer when determining a motion for intra-district transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Those factors include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of the witnesses, (3) the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, (4) the possibility of obtaining a fair trial, and (5) all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and economical. "The party seeking to transfer a case has the burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient, and the plaintiff's choice of forum should be disturbed only when the balance of factors tips strongly in favor of transfer."
See Four Corners Nephrology Assocs., P.C. v. Mercy Medical Center of Durango, 464 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1098 (D. Colo. 2006). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides 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."
See Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991).
Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 2001 WL 1579378, *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 10, 2001).
A. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
B. Convenience of Witnesses
Four Corners, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 1098.
C. The Accessibility of Witnesses and Other Sources of Proof
This factor does not weigh in either party's favor, since witnesses and documents appear to be equally accessible from either Denver or Grand Junction (setting aside the witness convenience issues discussed above).
D. The Possibility of Obtaining a Fair Trial
E. Other Considerations
See Four Corners, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 1100.
At this juncture at least, the relevant factors, taken together, do not tip strongly in favor of transfer. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Transfer Case To Grand Junction, CO, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) (Doc. No. 10) is denied without prejudice. Defendant may renew the motion at a later time, for example, once the witness list in this case has been submitted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption is amended to state the second Plaintiff's name as Madeline Yvonne Talbot, rather than "Tabot," in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error on the Amended Complaint.