Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00558/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00558-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DENNIS-JAMES KELSEY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Case No. 09-2321 (RJL) 

) 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et ai., ) 

) 

Dekndanb. ) 

) 

~ MEMORANDUM ORDER 

(February~, 2010) [# 4,5,7,9] 

This is the second complaint that plaintiff Dennis-lames Kelsey ("Kelsey") has 

filed in this Court seeking to prevent foreclosure on his property located in Arizona. 

Defendants Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., and the Maricopa 

County, Arizona Sheriff s Department filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, to 

transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. l For the 

same reasons as specified in the memorandum order transferring Kelsey v. Bank of 

America, et al., Case No. 09-cv-2006, the Court GRANTS the defendants' motion to 

transfer. 

The defendants assert that the proper venue for this case is the District of Arizona. 

I agree. Title 28 of the United States Code § 1404(a) provides that "[fJor the convenience 

of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil 

Kelsey also sued the Maricopa County Superior Court, which has not submitted 

any filings in this litigation. 

Case 2:10-cv-00558-NVW Document 14 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 3
action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." The statute 

vests discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer on an 

"individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Stewart Org., 

Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 

(1964)). 

Under § 1404(a), the moving party bears the burden of establishing that the 

transfer is proper. See Beckham v. Nat'/ R.R. Passenger Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 57,58 

(D.D.C.2007). To do so, the defendant must show that the plaintiff could have originally 

brought the action in the proposed transferee district and that considerations of the 

convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice 

weigh in favor of transfer. Id. Here, the property in question is in Arizona; Kelsey is an 

Arizona resident; multiple defendants do not appear subject to personal jurisdiction in the 

District of Columbia; and none of the events or actions giving rise to the complaint have 

any connection to the District of Columbia. Furthermore, none of the evidence, such as 

official copies of documents recorded in various Arizona counties, loan files, and 

correspondence, are located in the District of Columbia. Finally, Arizona has a vested 

interest in the outcome of this dispute concerning property located in Arizona, and 

Arizona substantive law governs those allegations that are raised under state, rather than 

federal, law. Since the Arizona federal courts are much more familiar with that law, it is 

also in the interest of justice to transfer the case to that Court. 

2 

Case 2:10-cv-00558-NVW Document 14 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 3
Thus, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the 

District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and it is hereby 

ORDERED that defendants' Motions to Transfer Venue [# 4,5,7,9] are 

GRANTED and it is further 

ORDERED that the above-captioned case be transferred to the District of 

Arizona. 

SO ORDERED. 

United States District Judge 

3 

Case 2:10-cv-00558-NVW Document 14 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3