N.E.L. et al v. Douglas County, Colorado et al

Filing 134

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 130 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 3/1/18. (kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
N.E.L., M.M.A., and E.M.M.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 17-2155-CM

MONICA GILDNER, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs N.E.L., M.M.A., and E.M.M.’s Motion to Transfer
Case (Doc. 130). Plaintiffs ask this court to reverse the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado’s decision to transfer the case to this court because it lacked specific jurisdiction over
defendants.
This case was transferred to this court from the District of Colorado on March 14, 2017. Plaintiffs
filed the present motion on September 25, 2017, more than six months after the case was transferred.
Plaintiffs allege the District of Colorado erred in finding it lacked specific jurisdiction because the suit
arises out of, or relates to, the contacts defendants had with two Colorado officials and their conspiracy
to commit an unlawful seizure in Colorado, and because the deprivation of plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights occurred in Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim their legal basis for their motion to retransfer is found in F.D.I.C. v. McGlamery,
74 F.3d 218, 222 (10th Cir. 1996). In McGlamery, the Tenth Circuit found that a transferee court and
transferee circuit have the power to “indirectly review the transfer order if the [plaintiff] moves in those
courts for retransfer the case.” Id. at 221. Courts considering a motion to retransfer, however, are
constrained by the “law of the case” doctrine. See Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928

-1-

F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Accordingly, traditional principles of law of the case counsel against
the transferee court reevaluating the rulings of the transferor court, including its transfer order.”). A
prior ruling of a transferor court, therefore, may only be reconsidered when 1) the governing law has
been changed by the subsequent decision of a higher court, 2) when new evidence becomes available, or
3) when clear error has been committed or to prevent manifest injustice. Id. Additionally, a party may
choose to challenge the transferor court’s decision to transfer a case for lack of personal jurisdiction on
appellate review after final judgment. McGlamery, 74 F.3d at 222 (“In terms of the effectiveness of
review after final judgment, a transfer for lack of personal jurisdiction provides no less opportunity for
review than a transfer for improper venue under § 1406(a).”).
In reviewing plaintiffs’ motion, however, the court finds no good reason to overturn the decision
of the magistrate judge in the District of Colorado, which was later adopted by the district court judge.
Plaintiffs have not shown any intervening law changes or the discovery of new evidence, nor have they
made a sufficient case to show the District of Colorado committed clear error. Personal jurisdiction
exists only when the suit arises out of or is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum. BristolMyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., S.F. Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). The District of
Colorado found defendants did not have the requisite contacts with Colorado, as all of defendants’
conduct took place in Kansas with the goal of returning the children to Kansas. The fact they may have
contacted officials in Colorado during the execution of a Kansas order or that the children were in
Colorado at the time of their alleged illegal seizure are too slight of contacts to overcome the fact that
most of the complained of conduct occurred in Kansas.
The court finds plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show this court should alter the
District of Colorado’s decision to transfer the case for lack of personal jurisdiction under the law of the
case doctrine. The motion is therefore denied.

-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Case (Doc. 130) is denied.

Dated March 1, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ Carlos Murguia
CARLOS MURGUIA
United States District Judge

-3-