Hansen v. Farrar
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 8) is granted, and the Court Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. ; transferring case (terminates case) ; granting 8 Motion to Transfer Case to Other District (Re: 2 Civil Cover Sheet ) (RGG, Chambers) [Transferred from oknd on 12/1/2017.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case No. 17-CV-0515-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Brief in Support (Dkt.
# 8). Defendant Bruce Farrar asks the Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, because this case concerns an automobile/bicycle accident that
occurred in Arkansas and none of the parties are citizens of Oklahoma for the purpose of diversity
jurisdiction. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiff Aaron Hansen responds that he received medical treatment in
Oklahoma following the accident, and his choice of forum should be given deference. Dkt. # 11.
The deadline to file a reply has expired, and defendant has not filed a reply.
Hansen alleges that he was participating in a cycling race in Fort Smith, Arkansas on
September 13, 2015, and he was riding his bicycle on the designated course. Dkt. # 1, at 2. He
claims that Farrar was stopped by volunteers assisting with the race when Farrar attempted to drive
onto the course. Id. at 3. Hansen alleges that Farrar disregarded warnings to stay off the race course
and he attempted to drive across the course just as Hansen was coming around a corner. Id.
Hansen’s bicycle collided with Farrar’s vehicle, and Hansen alleges that the accident was solely the
result of Farrar’s negligence. Id. Hansen states that he is a citizen of the state of Texas, but he is
a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force and he was stationed in Tulsa, Oklahoma
when the accident occurred. Id. at 1. Farrar is a citizen of Arkansas. Id.
On September 11, 2017, Hansen filed this case in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, and he has asserted a negligence claim against Farrar. Farrar alleges
that the parties are completely diverse and that he is seeking over $75,000 in damages. Farrar states
that venue is appropriate in this Court, because this is the judicial district in which he is domiciled
and “a substantial part of the medical treatment and physical therapy occurred following the injuries
Plaintiff sustained in the incident giving rise to this action.” Id. at 2. The complaint does not
include an allegation that Farrar is subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma. Farrar has filed a
motion requesting that the Court transfer this case to the Western District of Arkansas under 28
U.S.C. § 1404.
Both plaintiff and defendant rely on the factors for transfer of venue under § 1404 in support
of their arguments, but § 1404 applies only if this Court is an appropriate venue for plaintiff’s case.
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013). Section 1404 states 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 . . . .” This statute allows a district court to “transfer an action
filed in a proper, though not necessarily convenient, venue to a more convenient district.” Research
Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 977 (7th Cir. 2010). A case filed
in an improper venue can still be transferred to a district court in which the case could have been
filed, but such transfers are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., 134 S. Ct.
at 578. Section 1406 provides that a district court “in which is filed a case laying venue in the
wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district or division in which it could have been brought.” Before reaching the arguments raised by
the parties, the Court must initially determine whether venue is proper in the Northern District of
The question of whether venue is proper in a particular federal district court is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 1391. Section 1391 states that a civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in
this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff relies solely on § 1391(b)(2) in support of his assertion that venue
is proper in this Court. Under § 1391(b)(2), venue can be proper in multiple judicial districts as long
as a “substantial part of the underlying events took place in those districts.” Employers Mut. Cas.
Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010). The focus of a district court’s
analysis is on “whether the forum activities played a substantial role in the circumstances leading
up to the plaintiff’s claim.” Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1222 (N.D.
Plaintiff argues that he received medical treatment in Tulsa following the accident, and he
claims that his medical treatment is a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim. Plaintiff
cites no authority that medical expenses or treatment can be considered a substantial event giving
rise to his claim. The Court has independently researched this issue and federal courts have
consistently found that medical treatment, by itself, is not considered a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim. Wisland v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 119 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir.
1997); Whiting v. Hogan, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1286-87 (D.N.M. 2012); Hanyuan Dong. v.
Garcia, 553 F. Supp. 962, 965 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Smith v. Fortenberry, 903 F. Supp. 1018 (E.D. La.
1995). In this case, the event giving rise to plaintiff’s claim against defendant was the accident that
occurred in Fort Smith, Arkansas. All of the acts that would constitute negligence on the part of the
defendant occurred in Fort Smith, and plaintiff has not alleged that defendant committed any act in
the state of Oklahoma. Plaintiff seeks damages for medical expenses incurred after the accident, but
the medical treatment that plaintiff received did not give rise to his claim against defendant. Plaintiff
happens to reside in Oklahoma and he sought medical treatment in Oklahoma, but the location of
plaintiff’s residence does not constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim
against defendant. Whiteman v. Grand Wailea Resort, 1999 WL 163044 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 1999)
(the alleged tortious conduct occurred in Hawaii, and venue was not appropriate in California merely
because the plaintiff obtained medical treatment after leaving Hawaii).
The Court finds that venue is not proper in the Northern District of Oklahoma, because all
of the acts giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Based on this finding,
the Court does not reach the parties arguments concerning transfer of venue under § 1404, because
plaintiff has not shown that venue is proper in this Court. Instead, the Court must consider whether
to dismiss the case or transfer it to a proper venue under § 1406. Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d
1210, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006). The Court finds that it would be in the interests of justice to transfer
this case to the Western District of Arkansas. Defendant has not sought dismissal of plaintiff’s case
due to improper venue, but defendant has asked the Court to transfer the case to a proper venue. The
Court is transferring the case to the Western District of Arkansas under § 1406, and the transferree
court will apply its own choice of law rules to determine whether Oklahoma or Arkansas law should
apply to the case. Trierweiler v. Croxton and Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523, 1532 (10th Cir.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Brief in
Support (Dkt. # 8) is granted, and the Court Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
DATED this 30th day of November, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?