KAYACHITH v. ROBINSON, (D.Minn. 2004)

JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge

Bill Kayachith and Susan Kayachith, as co-trustees for the heirs and next-of-kin of Souvorachak Kayachith, deceased, (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this wrongful death action in Hennepin County District Court against Julie Robinson and Covenant Transport, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, respondeat superior, negligent entrustment and violation of the Minnesota Safety Responsibility Act. Defendants removed the case to this Court and now move to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

This case arises from the collision of a Covenant-owned tractor-trailer and a motor vehicle on March 7, 2003, on Interstate 94 near Hixton, Wisconsin. Julie Robinson, an employee of Covenant, was the driver of the tractor-trailer. Souvorachak Kayachith, his wife Melinda Athakanh, and their child Annita Athakanh were in the motor vehicle. Souvorachak Kayachith and Melinda Athakanh were killed instantly in the collision. Annita Ahakanh survived after receiving medical treatment.

Motions to transfer venue are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2000), which provides "For the convenience of the 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." The party seeking a transfer ordinarily bears the burden of establishing that a transfer is warranted. Terra Int'l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 695 (8th Cir. 1997). A motion to transfer an action to another district should be denied unless the balance of factors strongly favors the moving party. Graff v. Qwest Communications Corp., 33 F. Supp.2d 1117, 1121 (D. Minn. 1999). The decision of whether to transfer an action lies within the discretion of the district court. Everett v. St. Ansgar Hosp., 974 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1992).

The threshold question of whether venue is proper in the Western District of Wisconsin is not disputed in this case. The Court, therefore, turns to the second part of the analysis, whether a transfer is proper for the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses and the interests of justice.

In looking to the convenience of the parties, transfer should not be granted if the effect is simply to shift the inconvenience to the party resisting the transfer. See Nelson v. Soo Line R. R. Co., 58 F. Supp.2d 1023, 1027 (D. Minn. 1999). Because Julie Robinson resides in Florida and Covenant Transport's principal place of business is in Tennessee, Defendants will necessarily litigate this case outside of their respective home states. As such, Defendants will be equally inconvenienced whether the case is litigated in Minnesota or Wisconsin. On the other hand, if the Court transfers the action to the Western District of Wisconsin, then Plaintiffs, who are Minnesota residents, will incur the inconvenience and added costs of litigating outside of their home state and chosen forum. Because transfer creates inconvenience for Plaintiffs where none existed before, the issue of convenience of the parties weighs in favor of denying the motion to transfer.

The convenience of the witnesses is an important factor in the transfer analysis. Graff, 33 F. Supp.2d at 1121; Nelson v. Master Lease Corp., 759 F. Supp. 1397, 1402 (D. Minn. 1991). Considerations relevant to this factor include the number of essential nonparty witnesses, their location, and the preference for live testimony. Graff, 33 F. Supp.2d at 1121; Master Lease, 759 F. Supp. at 1402. This factor is not a contest between the parties as to which one presents a longer list of witnesses located in the potential districts. Graff, 33 F. Supp.2d at 1121-22; Master Lease, 759 F. Supp. at 1402. The party seeking the transfer must clearly specify the essential witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover. Graff, 33 F. Supp.2d at 1122; Master Lease, 759 F. Supp. at 1402. The court must examine the materiality and importance of the anticipated witnesses' testimony and determine whether the forum is convenient for them. Graff, 33 F. Supp.2d at 1122.

In this case, Defendants identify twelve witnesses who will be inconvenienced by proceeding with the litigation in Minnesota. Those witnesses include Wisconsin police officers and emergency medical personnel who attended to the accident, an investigator from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the Jackson County Coroner, a Wisconsin-based toxicologist and local hospital personnel. Defendants assert that the witnesses' testimony will provide information regarding weather conditions, road conditions, the type and amount of medical assistance rendered, and reconstruction of the accident. Defendants "doubt that these witnesses may be compelled to appear in Minnesota" and that these witnesses should not suffer the inconvenience of traveling to another state. Defendants fail to support these assertions with evidence sufficient to determine which, if any, of these witnesses are subject to the 100-mile range of this Court's subpoena power. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 45(b)(2). Furthermore, at oral argument, Defendants conceded that the travel distance between Hixton, Wisconsin and St. Paul, Minnesota, and Hixton, Wisconsin and Madison, Wisconsin, is roughly equidistant. Given this similarity in travel time, the Court cannot conclude that the witnesses' crossing the Minnesota/Wisconsin border causes any measurable inconvenience.

Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, they have two essential witnesses, Kirby Nehk and Brian Harvey, who are Minnesota residents and who would be inconvenienced by a trial in Wisconsin. Nehk witnessed the accident through his rearview mirror, and the parties agree that he lives outside the Wisconsin court's subpoena power. Harvey witnessed Covenant's tractor-trailer driving past him immediately before the accident, and he may or may not be within the Wisconsin Court's 100-mile scope. See id.

Thus, wherever this case is litigated, it appears that some witnesses will not be subject to the trial court's subpoena power. While the testimony of Defendants' witnesses is important, the Court concludes that the interests of securing the testimony of the eye-witnesses, coupled with Defendants' failure to demonstrate which of their witnesses would be outside this Court's subpoena power, weighs in favor of retaining the action in Minnesota. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that a transfer would serve the convenience of the witnesses.

The last prong of the transfer analysis addresses whether the interest of justice favors transfer. Soo Line R. R., 58 F. Supp.2d at 1027. To the extent relevant to the facts of each case, this step typically involves considerations of judicial economy, obstacles to a fair trial, conflict of law problems, and advantages of having a local court determine local law. Id.

Here, Defendants focus on the advantages of having a local court determine local law. In particular, that this case might involve the application of Wisconsin law and that transfer is warranted because a federal court in Wisconsin is more familiar with the applicable law and its application than a court in Minnesota. Defendants fail, however, to identify any specific difficulties this Court would face in applying Wisconsin law and instead argue in the most general terms.

Defendants also assert that "Wisconsin courts have strong interest in the protection of citizens traveling on its highways and resolving local controversies in its own courts." The Court recognizes Wisconsin's interest in protecting its highways and in resolving local disputes. However, in light of convenience of the parties and convenience of the witnesses, the Court concludes this aspect does not weigh so heavily in favor of defendants as to compel transfer.

In sum, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that the balance of factors strongly favors a transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The Court therefore denies Defendants' motion.

Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue [Docket No. 4] is DENIED.