Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00774/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00774-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

Sara Cortes; Dean Forrest, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0774-PHX-JAT (Lead)

CV 08-0776-PHX-JAT (Cons)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dean Forrest’s Motion to Change Divisional

Office (Case # CV-08-0776-PHX-JAT, Doc. # 11). Defendant has indicated in its Response

(Case # CV-08-0776-PHX-JAT, Doc. # 12) that it does not object to Plaintiff’s Motion. The

Court now rules on the matter.

Plaintiff Forrest, a resident of Yavapai county, has requested that the Court transfer

the present action from the Phoenix Division of the District of Arizona to its Prescott

Division. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 governs the transfer of civil actions between divisions within a

federal district. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c), “[a] district court may order any civil action to be

tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.” Although Forrest has requested

transfer and Defendant has not objected, the Court finds that this transfer would not serve the

interests of fairness or efficiency. After Forrest filed his Motion to Change Divisions, his

case was consolidated with that of Sara Cortes. Ms. Cortes is a resident of Maricopa County,

Case 2:08-cv-00774-JAT Document 17 Filed 07/25/08 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 -

and she has not had a chance to be heard on this matter. Further, in response to Defendant’s

Motion to Consolidate, Forrest stated that he would not be inconvenienced by a deposition

in Phoenix. Forrest has thus waived any arguments that the burden of proceeding in the

present division is too burdensome, at least at the current point in the litigation process.

The Court acknowledges that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed

concern regarding the Court’s denial of motions to transfer cases to the Prescott Division in

the past. See United States v. Etsitty, 130 F.3d 420, 424-26 (9th Cir. 1997). However, this

concern has only arisen in the context of jury panel selection for criminal trials. The present

case is a civil action where the time for jury selection is still quite far in the future.

The Court thus exercises its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) to maintain the

present action in the Phoenix Division.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Change the Divisional

Office (CV-08-0776-PHX-JAT Doc. # 11) is DENIED without prejudice to reurging the

matter should this case reach the jury selection phase.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00774-JAT Document 17 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 2