Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01835/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01835-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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

1

 The Parties’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully

briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Knight Transportation, Inc., an Arizona

Corporation; et al.

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Baldwin & Lyons, Inc., an Indiana

Corporation; et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1835-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants move to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the

District of Indiana. Doc. 7. Plaintiffs oppose. Doc. 10. The motions have been fully

briefed.1

 Docs. 7, 10, 13. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion.

Defendants concede that the only two factors under Jones v. GNC Franchising,

211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000), that could justify transfer here are “the availability of sources

of proof and the forum court’s ability to compel discovery and attendance at trial.” Doc. 13

at 3. They assert that “several witnesses, including Steve Brazzell, who are located in Illinois

and Indiana will be beyond the subpoena power of this Court for trial,” (id. at 4), though they

concede in their motion that the Court can “subpoena such witnesses in Indiana” under Rule

45 (Doc. 7 at 5). Defendants also implicitly concede that they do not know with certainty

at this stage where the majority of witnesses and evidence will be located. Doc. 13 at 5. 

Case 2:10-cv-01835-SMM Document 14 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

After reviewing the pleadings, the Court finds that Defendants have not made a

showing sufficiently adequate to defeat the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to transfer venue (Doc. 7) is denied.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01835-SMM Document 14 Filed 12/09/10 Page 2 of 2