Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00042/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

Luis Amparano, a single man,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Rhonda Schurian and Georg Schurian, a

married couple,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2175-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This action arises on Plaintiff Luis Amparano’s Motion to Transfer to

Tucson Division. (docket # 16) Plaintiff requests this case be transferred to the United

States District Court, Tucson Division, because Plaintiff, his medical expert witnesses and

Plaintiff’s counsel work and reside in Tucson, warranting a transfer to Tucson Division

“in the interests of justice and for the convenience of witnesses.” (Id.) Defen-dants

Rhonda and Georg Schurian have no objection to the transfer. (docket # 18)

“Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that [f]or

the convenience of 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.” United States v. One Oil Painting Entitled “Femme en Blanc” by Pablo

Picasso, 362 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citations and internal quotation

Case 4:09-cv-00042-BPV Document 19 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 3
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

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides as follows:

(a) For the convenience of 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.

- 2 -

marks omitted); 28 U.S.C.§ 1404(a).1

 “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in

the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized,

case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness’ [and] to weigh in the balance a

number of case-specific factors. ” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29

(1988) (citation omitted). With a preference to live, in-court testimony, the convenience

of witnesses is “the most important factor in passing on a transfer motion.” Los Angeles

Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 501 (C.D. Cal.

1981).

The Complaint alleges a motor vehicle collision that occurred October 22,

2008, in Coolidge, Pinal County, Arizona involving the Canadian citizen Defendant

Rhonda Schurian and resulting in injuries to the Tucson, Pima County, Plaintiff. (docket #

1 and Exhibit A) Coolidge is located at approximately the midpoint between, and roughly

the same driving time to, Phoenix and Tucson. Suit was initially filed in the Pinal County

Superior Court and properly removed to the Phoenix Division by Phoenix defense counsel

pursuant LRCiv. 77.1. Further, this case is in the early stages of its evolution as no Rule 16

scheduling conference has been held, much less a trial date set.

Upon consideration of the individual factors of this case, the Court finds that

transfer to the Tucson Division is in the best interests of justice and convenience of all

witnesses.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Luis Amparano’s Motion to Transfer to

Tucson Division, docket # 16, is GRANTED. The Clerk is hereby directed to transfer this

case to Tucson for all further matters.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 3, 2009 Rule 16 schedulCase 4:09-cv-00042-BPV Document 19 Filed 01/16/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

ing conference before the undersigned is hereby VACATED.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2009.

Case 4:09-cv-00042-BPV Document 19 Filed 01/16/09 Page 3 of 3