Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00845/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00845-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

HELLEN S. NASH PLAINTIFF

Case Number: 4:05CV00845GH

JEFFREY A. HALL, M.D. . DEFENDANT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is defendant’s motion to transfer based on forum

non conveniens. Plaintiff, a resident of Pocahontas, Randolph County, Arkansas,

filed this medical malpractice action against defendant, who at the time of the

incident was a resident of Pocahontas. Defendant now resides in Phoenix, Arizona.

He contends that the case should be transferred to the Jonesboro Division where

the surgery occurred, and where many of the witnesses reside (including plaintiff). 

Defendant asserts that there is no connection between this case and the Western

Division.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) a court may transfer any civil action to any

other district or division where it might have been brought for the convenience of

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. See Terra Int’l., Inc. v.

Mississippi Chem. Corp. 119 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir. 1997)(transfer motion requires

the court to consider the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the

witnesses, the interests of justice, and any other relevant factors when comparing

alternative venues). “The party seeking transfer bears the burden of proving that

transfer is warranted, and in light of the deference given to a plaintiff's choice of

forum, there is a strong presumption in favor of the nonmoving party.” Beckley v.

Auto Profit Masters, L.L.C., 266 F. Supp.2d 1001, 1006 (S.D.Iowa 2003).

Plaintiff disputes that transfer is warranted. While plaintiff concedes that

Case 4:05-cv-00845-JLH Document 8 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

some witnesses reside in the Jonesboro Division, she argues that a number of

witnesses are from out of state and that travel to Little Rock is more convenient for

those witnesses than travel to Jonesboro. Plaintiff also contends that she can

obtain a fairer jury in Little Rock, given defense counsel’s prominence in the

Jonesboro area as well as the possibility that potential jurors are familiar with

defendant.

Given the strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum, and that

neither plaintiff nor defendant would be any more convenienced by having the trial

in Jonesboro, the Court is persuaded that transfer is not warranted.

Accordingly, the motion to transfer is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2005.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00845-JLH Document 8 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2