Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05067/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05067-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Texas Trophy Hunters Association, LTD.
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ARKANSAS TROPHY HUNTERS

ASSOCIATION, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5067

TEXAS TROPHY HUNTERS

ASSOCIATION, LTD. DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 18th day of December, 2006, comes on for consideration

plaintiff’s Motion For Change Of Venue (document #34), and from said

motion, and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff seeks to change the venue it originally selected

in this case, the Fayetteville Division of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. It contends that

the lawyers for both sides, as well as plaintiff's witnesses, are all

located in Little Rock, Arkansas, and asserts that "Defendant has no

more presence or less in the Western District than it has in the Eastern

District." Plaintiff states that it selected the venue at the time of

filing because it sought to enjoin a trade show that was being held in

Fayetteville, but that since the injunction was denied, the "reason for

venue in Fayetteville is moot." Plaintiff further states that venue

would also have been proper in the Eastern District of Arkansas at the

time of filing.

2. Defendant opposes the change of venue, stating that it has

multiple witnesses residing in the Western District of Arkansas.

Defendant also contends that there are no changed circumstances that

would justify the Court in allowing plaintiff -- who selected the venue

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 40 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

-- to now change its mind and select a different venue.

3. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), 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."

Ordinarily, a motion for change of venue is made by a defendant who

believes itself inconvenienced by the plaintiff's choice of forum.

Where that occurs, courts have held that the defendant has the burden

of proving that its alternative forum of choice is more convenient than

the forum chosen by the plaintiff, and the court must give deference to

the plaintiff's choice of forum. "Merely shifting the inconvenience

from one side to the other is not a permissible reason for change of

venue." Knapp v. Fooshee, 2006 WL 2381886 (E.D. Ark. 2006). Here,

because it is the plaintiff who seeks an alternative forum, the Court

finds it appropriate to place the burden of proof upon the plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff suggests that a change of venue is appropriate

because the attorneys for both parties are located in Little Rock, and

significant travel costs are incurred when they must come to

Fayetteville for a hearing. This is not a valid basis for a transfer

of venue. Nelson v. Soo Line Railroad Company, 58 F.Supp.2d 1023

(D.Minn. 1999).

5. With regard to witnesses, "[r]elevant considerations include

the number of essential non-party witnesses, their location, and the

preference of courts for live testimony as opposed to depositions." Id.

Plaintiff makes a wholly insufficient showing on this score for the

Court to find that such considerations would justify a transfer.

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 40 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

6. Finally, the Court considers the interest of justice. This

case was filed on April 13, 2006, and trial is scheduled for the week

of January 22, 2007. The Court is already familiar with the issues in

the case, having heard evidence in connection with a motion for

temporary restraining order. Transfer would result in a delay in

resolution of the issues, and would require a new court to familiarize

itself with the issues. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no basis to transfer

this case to the Eastern District of Arkansas, and the motion will be

denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion For Change Of Venue

(document #34) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 40 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>