Motion to transfer
case to Colorado denied by U.S. District Court for Western District of NY In
a personal injury action where the plaintiff was allegedly injured in Colorado,
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied the defendant's
motion to transfer the case to Colorado. In Blake R. Boyle v. Anheuser Busch,
Inc., Judge John T. Elfvin found that a number of factors, including the fact
that the plaintiff lives in New York and received all of his medical treatment
in the state, weighed against transferring the case. Personal injury action This
action stems from injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Blake R. Boyle, when he
crushed his wrist while working as a contractor at a facility owned by Anheuser
Busch, Inc. Boyle is a resident of New York but worked on an Anheuser Busch facility
that was located in Ft. Collins, CO. Anheuser Busch is a Delaware corporation
and has facilities throughout the country. The company filed a motion to transfer
the case, arguing that the case should be tried in the District of Colorado instead
of the Western District of New York. Court's discussion Motion to transfer venue
According to 28 USC § 1404(a), a district court may "[f]or the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice, *** transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have been brought,"
(emphasis added). Based on this standard, the district court determined that the
defendant failed to show that it would be more convenient if the case was transferred
to the District of Colorado. In reaching this determination, the district court
looked at a number of factors, see Excelsior Designs, Inc. v. Sheres, 291 FSupp2d
181, 185 (EDNY 2003); AEC One Stop Group, Inc. v. CD Listening Bar, Inc., 326
FSupp2d 525, 528 (SDNY 2004). Those factors included: * the place where the operative
facts occurred; * the convenience of the parties; * the convenience of the witnesses;
* the relative ease of access to sources of proof; * the availability of process
to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; * the plaintiff's choice of forum;
* the forum's familiarity with the governing law; and * trial efficiency and the
interests of justice. While the facts of the case established that Boyle allegedly
injured himself in Colorado, the court noted that it was only a remote possibility
that a jury would be required to visit the actual work site. With regard to the
issue of potential witnesses, Boyle asserted that he received all of his medical
treatment and surgeries in Buffalo, and that he and his doctors would be inconvenienced
if the case was transferred to Colorado. On the other hand, Anheuser Busch contended
that its witnesses would be inconvenienced if the case were to be tried in New
York. The court, however, noted that the company failed to specifically identify
or name any witnesses who would be inconvenienced. "As the moving party,
Anheuser Busch has the burden of showing that convenience will be furthered by
a transfer," explained Judge Elfvin. "Accordingly, it must name the
witnesses whose convenience will be served by a transfer and state the substance
of their anticipated testimony." The judge further noted that Anheuser Busch
intended to have many of its employees be called as witnesses. In particular,
the company contended that Boyle's injury did not occur while working at its facility,
and was going to call on a number of its employees who would refute Boyle's claims.
"Certainly, Anheuser Busch can produce its own employees in this district
should their testimony be required," added the judge. "Boyle, on the
other hand, has no such control over his anticipated witnesses, other than himself."
The district court also noted that a significant economic disparity existed between
the parties so that a change in venue would negatively affect Boyle. "[Boyle]
is an individual. [Anheuser Busch] is a massive corporation with facilities and
offices throughout the United States," wrote the district court. "The
interests of justice therefore weigh against a transfer." Court's ruling
The court denied Anheuser Busch's motion to transfer the case. "[T]he court
concludes that Anheuser Busch has not shown that a transfer of this action to
the District of Colorado would be more convenient and it is ordered that Anheuser
Busch's motion to transfer venue is denied," ruled the district court.
| |
