Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00577/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00577-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rhonda Spear,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Progressive Financial Services, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00577-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has moved to transfer to the District of Utah. Doc. 7. No response has 

been filed. The Court will grant the motion. 

 This case is in its early stages. Plaintiff filed her complaint on March 20, 2014. 

The docket reflects that Defendant Progressive Financial Services was served on April 1, 

2014, but no answer has been filed and Defendant has not appeared. 

“For 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The district court may consider several factors 

in determining whether to transfer venue, including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the 

extent of the parties’ contacts with the forum, the contacts in the forum relating to the 

plaintiff’s cause of action, the availability of non-party witnesses, and the accessibility of 

evidence. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Although transfers are most commonly initiated by Defendants, Plaintiffs may also move 

to transfer for convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice. Ferens v. John 

Case 2:14-cv-00577-DGC Document 11 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 525 (1990) (noting that “[t]ransfers initiated by a plaintiff 

involve some different considerations, but lead to the same result.”). 

 Plaintiff originally alleged that Defendant was a resident of Arizona. Doc. 1, ¶ 5. 

In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff notes that Defendant is in fact a resident of Utah. 

Doc. 6, ¶ 5. Transfer will give substantial deference to Plaintiff’s choice of the Utah 

forum, Int’l Comfort Prods., Inc. v. Hanover House Indus., Inc., 739 F. Supp. 503, 506 

(D. Ariz. 1989), and be more convenient for Defendant, Impra, Inc. v. Quinton 

Instruments Co., CV-90-0383-PHX-WPC, 1990 WL 284713, *2 (D. Ariz. 1990). The 

Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to transfer. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to transfer (Doc. 7) is granted. The 

Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District 

of Utah. 

 Dated this 15th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00577-DGC Document 11 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 2