McIntosh v. City of Wichita et al
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 45 Motion to Transfer Case without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 4/14/2015. (ms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARCUS MCINTOSH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-2402-DDC-TJJ
CITY OF WICHITA, KS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit alleging that defendant Brian Safris used excessive force
when he arrested plaintiff on August 15, 2013. Plaintiff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged violations of his constitutional rights against defendants City of Wichita, Chief of
Police Norman Williams, and Safris. Plaintiff also asserts negligence claims against all three
defendants and battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against
defendant Safris. Plaintiff has designated Kansas City, Kansas as the place of trial. This matter
comes before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Determine Wichita as the Place for Trial (Doc.
45). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies this motion without prejudice.
I.
Legal Standard
Under D. Kan. Rule 40.2(e), the Court is not bound by a party’s designated place of trial
and may determine the place of trial upon motion or in its discretion. In determining the proper
place of trial, the Court “generally look[s] to the same factors relevant to motions for change in
venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Lopez-Aguirre v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Shawnee Cnty.,
Kan., No. 12-2752-JWL, 2014 WL 853748, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar. 5, 2014). These factors are: (1)
plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; (3) the accessibility of
1
witnesses and other sources of proof; (4) the possibility of obtaining a fair trial; and (5) all other
practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and economical. McDermed v.
Marian Clinic, Inc., No. 14-2194-EFM-KMH, 2014 WL 6819407, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2014)
(citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991)).
The moving party bears the burden to establish the existing forum’s inconvenience. Id. (citations
omitted).
II.
Analysis
A. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
“Unless [the § 1404(a)] factors weigh strongly in the defendant’s favor, the ‘plaintiff’s
choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.’” Tiffany v. City of Topeka, No. 09-2232-CM, 2009
WL 1683515, at *1 (D. Kan. June 16, 2009) (citations omitted). However, this factor is “largely
inapplicable” if a plaintiff’s choice of forum is not his “place of residence.” Menefee v. Zepick,
No. 09-1227-JWL, 2009 WL 1313236, at *1 (D. Kan. May 12, 2009); cf. Benson v. Hawker
Beechcraft Corp., No. 07-2171-JWL, 2007 WL 1834010, at *1 (D. Kan. June 26, 2007) (stating
that “the rationale for allowing the plaintiff to dictate the forum evaporates” when the plaintiff
lives outside his choice of forum); but see Tiffany, 2009 WL 1683515, at *1 (stating that “the
factor weighs only slightly in favor of plaintiff” in such a situation). In addition to a plaintiff
living outside his chosen forum, “courts have given little weight to a plaintiff’s choice of forum
‘where the facts giving rise to the lawsuit have no material relation or significant connection to
the plaintiff’s chosen forum.’” McDermed, 2014 WL 6819407, at *2 (quoting Cook v. Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 816 F. Supp. 667, 669 (D. Kan. 1993)).
Here, plaintiff resides in Wichita, not Kansas City. (Doc. 29, at ¶ 7) In addition, the facts
giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Wichita, not Kansas City. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14) Thus,
plaintiff’s choice of forum is “largely inapplicable” and the Court gives this factor little weight.
2
B. Convenience and Accessibility of Evidence
“The relative convenience of the forum is a primary, if not the most important, factor to
consider in deciding a motion to transfer.” Menefee, 2009 WL 1313236, at *2. Plaintiff’s
proposed forum must be “substantially inconvenient” to warrant a change in forum. Id. A
proposed forum is substantially inconvenient if all or practically all the witnesses reside in a
different forum and traveling to the proposed forum is a substantial burden. Id. (holding that
there was an “enormous disparity in convenience between Kansas City and Wichita” because all
witnesses would have to travel 200 miles from Wichita to Kansas City); Lopez-Aguirre, 2014
WL 853748, at *2 (granting motion to designate Topeka as the place of trial rather than Kansas
City because the “great majority of witnesses” were located in Shawnee County and holding it in
Kansas City would “cause much more disruption” to these witnesses); S. Star Cent. Gas
Pipeline, Inc. v. Greul, No. 08-2115-KHV, 2008 WL 5264130, at *3 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2008)
(refusing to transfer place of trial from Kansas City to Wichita because “the record contains no
suggestion that the overwhelming majority of potential witnesses are located in or near
Wichita.”); Spires v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., No. 06-2137-JWL, 2006 WL 1642701, at *3 (D. Kan.
June 8, 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 289 F. App’x 269 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that there was
an “enormous disparity in convenience between Kansas City and Wichita” when most witnesses,
parties, and attorneys resided in Wichita and none resided in Kansas City); Benson, 2007 WL
1834010, at *3 (granting motion to designate place of trial as Wichita rather than Kansas City
because “several of the witnesses, parties, and attorneys” resided in Wichita while “none
reside[d] in Kansas City,” and “witnesses would incur additional costs and miss work in
traveling to Kansas City.”); Jones v. Wichita State Univ., No. 06-2131-KHV-GLR, 2007 WL
1173053, at *1–2 (D. Kan. Apr. 19, 2007) (granting motion to determine Wichita as place of trial
rather than Kansas City because “most, if not all, of the witnesses, parties, and attorneys
3
reside[d] in Wichita” and would have “to travel three hours each way to testify,” possibly
“spend[ing] the night in Kansas City if their testimony does not begin or is not completed at the
close of the day.”).
Here, the great majority of the witnesses reside in Wichita. Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1)
Disclosures name 36 witnesses, 29 of whom reside in Wichita. (Doc. 46-1) One witness resides
in Mulvane, twenty-five miles south of Wichita (and even farther from Kansas City). (Doc. 46 at
4) Thus, 30 of plaintiff’s 36 witnesses reside in or around Wichita. Likewise, defendant’s Rule
26(a)(1) Disclosures name 14 witnesses. Twelve of them reside in Wichita. (Doc. 46-2) The
same Mulvane resident and another witness in Iowa are the other two witnesses. (Doc. 46 at 4)
In this case then, a great majority of the witnesses reside in or near Wichita. Traveling from
Wichita to Kansas City would impose a substantial burden because of the significant distance
between the two cities. Moreover, the witnesses likely would miss an entire work day to testify.
Thus, the evidence suggests Kansas City is likely a “substantially inconvenient” place for trial.
However, as plaintiff notes, the Court cannot effectively evaluate this factor until
discovery ends and the parties exchange final witness lists. EEOC v. Newman Univ., No. 052404-KHV, 2006 WL 23566, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 4, 2006); Biglow v. Boeing Co., 174 F. Supp.
2d 1187, 1195 (D. Kan. 2001). The Court does not yet know how many or which witnesses the
parties will call. Also, the parties may identify other witnesses who may reside closer to Kansas
City through the course of discovery and may supplement their witness lists with those other
individuals. Thus, the Court is inclined at this time to let the case progress through discovery
and determine the proper place of trial nearer to the start of trial. As a consequence, the Court
denies defendants’ motion without prejudice. Defendants may refile this motion when the
relevant geographical considerations emerge more fully. Nevertheless, hoping to help the parties
4
assess the remaining factors for determining the place of trial, the Court briefly discusses them
below.
C. Fair Trial
Plaintiff argues that he may not receive a fair trial in Wichita because a Wichita jury
would consist of Wichita taxpayers, who are unlikely to award a large judgment against the City.
However, our Court has already rejected this argument. Boyer v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, No. 944078-SAC, 1995 WL 106346, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 19, 1995) (stating that “plaintiff’s fear that she
cannot receive a fair trial in Kansas City—because the jury will possibly be comprised of a
parsimonious contingent of Johnson County taxpayers—is nothing more than speculation. The
court is confident that the plaintiff’s concerns about ‘biased’ Johnson County taxpayers will be
adequately addressed during voir dire of the prospective jurors.”). Similarly, the Court
anticipates that voir dire will alleviate plaintiff’s concerns about taxpayer bias and ensure that
plaintiff receives a fair trial. Thus, this factor does not weigh in favor of designating Kansas City
as the place of trial.
D. Other Factors
The Court also may consider various other factors when determining the place of trial.
For instance, in Hughes v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., our Court considered the
“costs in the form of mileage, meals, and hotel expenses” incurred by holding trial in plaintiff’s
proposed forum. No. 12-2339 JTM, 2012 WL 3644845, at *4 (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 2012). The
Court also may consider the cost of forcing medical practitioners to travel for trial testimony at
the expense of time lost treating patients. Spires, 2006 WL 1642701, at *3. In addition, the
Court may consider the potential for delay in calling witnesses. Jones, 2007 WL 1173053, at *2.
In contrast, the convenience of counsel “is given little if any weight.” Id. (citations omitted).
5
At this time, various other factors weigh in favor of holding the trial in Wichita. Even if
most witnesses themselves will not bear the cost of traveling to Kansas City, as plaintiff
suggests, the City of Wichita likely will bear this cost for its employee witnesses. Also, plaintiff
has named four Wichita doctors as witnesses, who will not be able to treat patients on the day
they testify if they are called in Kansas City. (Doc. 46-1 at ¶¶ 24-27) Holding the trial in
Wichita serves to minimize any potential delays in calling witnesses. Last, the Court gives little
weight to the fact that one of plaintiff’s attorneys resides and practices in Kansas City.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Court denies defendants’ Motion to Determine
Wichita as the Place for Trial without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants’ Motion to
Determine Wichita as the Place for Trial (Doc. 45) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of April, 2015, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
6
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?