United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER TO TRANSFER
Y. Daniel Senior United States District Judge
25, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692k(d). (ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 1). This matter is
before me on Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Change Venue
(the "Motion") (ECF No. 32), filed April 19, 2106.
Plaintiff "take[s] no position with respect to renewal
of the Motion for a change of venue" and has not filed a
response to the Motion. (ECF No. 32 at 1). Therefore, the
Motion is deemed fully briefed and ripe for decision.
carefully considered the Motion, the relevant record, and all
legal authorities, I grant Defendant’s Motion to change
venue for the reasons stated below.
Motion, Defendant requests that I transfer this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri because it principal place of business is located in
U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides "[f]or the convenience of
the 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."
Congress enacted the statute "as a ‘federal
housekeeping measure, ’ allowing easy change of venue
within a unified federal system." Chrysler Credit
Corp. v. County Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515
(10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v.
Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 (1981)). Although Congress
drafted section 1404(a) in accordance with the doctrine of
forum non conveniens, "the statute was intended to
revise rather than merely codify the common law."
Id. District courts therefore enjoy greater
discretion to transfer a case pursuant to section 1404(a)
than to dismiss the action based upon the forum non
conveniens doctrine. Id. The moving party bears the
burden of demonstrating that the existing forum is
decision whether to transfer an action lies within the sound
discretion of the trial judge. See Texas Eastern
Transmission Corp. v. Marine Office-Appleton & Cox
Corp., 579 F.2d 561, 567 (10th Cir. 1978). In exercising
that discretion, the Court must "adjudicate motions for
transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and fairness.’"
Chrysler, 928 F.2d at 1516 (quoting Stewart Org.
v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). Among the
factors a district court should consider are: (1) the
plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the accessibility of
witnesses and other sources of proof, including the
availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of
witnesses; (3) the cost of making the necessary proof; (4)
questions as to the enforceability of a judgment; (5) the
relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; (6)
difficulties that may arise from congested dockets; (7) the
possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area
of conflict of laws; (8) the advantage of having a local
court determine questions of local law; and (9) all other
practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious
and economical. Id. (citation omitted).
case, while Plaintiff has selected Colorado as his forum of
choice, it appears that Plaintiff has no opposition to
transferring this matter to the Eastern District of Missouri.
Further, Plaintiff does not reside in Colorado and is a
citizen of the State of New York. See Spires v. Hosp.
Corp. of Am., No. 06-2137-JWL, 2006 WL 1642701, at *2
(D. Kan. June 8, 2006) (holding that when the plaintiff does
not reside in the chosen forum, the rationale for allowing
the plaintiff to dictate the forum evaporates); see
also 15 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward
H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction
§ 3848 (3d ed.2007) (observing that many courts give
substantially less, if any, deference to the plaintiff's
choice of forum when the plaintiff resides elsewhere). It
also appears that at the inception of this case, Plaintiff
may have mistakenly believed that Defendant maintained its
business in Colorado while the Motion states otherwise. (ECF
No. 1, Compl. ¶ 3).
the remaining factors governing transfer, I conclude that the
balance of equities tips strongly in favor of a transfer of
this case to the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Defendant’s Motion to change venue should be granted.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Change Venue (ECF
No. 32) is GRANTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this case to
the United States District Court for ...