Summary: Defendant sought to transfer venue to the Northern District of Iowa. Finding the test for transfer not met, the Court denied the motion.

Case Name: Gail Brookins, et al. v. Intl Motor Contest

Case Number: A3-01-29

Docket Number: 18

Date Filed: 7/27/01

Nature of Suit: 360

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I.  Introduction 

    Before the Court are plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. # 5) and defendant’s motion to change venue (doc. # 7). For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion to change venue is DENIED and the Court ORDERS oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Finally, the Court ASSIGNS this case to the Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade, for purposes of hearing and deciding the motion for preliminary injunction.

II. Venue

    Defendant seeks a change of venue to the Northern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1404. That section provides, in relevant part, “For 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Notably, defendant does not argue that venue is improper in this district, merely that it would be more convenient to try this case in Iowa. It is clear that the “grant or denial of a change of venue is in the discretion of the trial court and may not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Hubbard v. White, 755 F.2d 692, 695 (8th Cir. 1985). Here, the Court finds in its discretion that none of defendant’ arguments for transfer overcomes plaintiff’s decision to file in this district and continued desire to stay here.

    Sec. 1404 lists three factors to be considered: convenience of the parties, convenience of witnesses, and the interests of justice. As defendant concedes, the convenience of the parties favors neither side: Defendant is in Iowa, while plaintiffs are in North Dakota. Defendant asserts the convenience of witnesses favors it, since many of the witnesses will come from Iowa, where the IMCA racing market is quite large, especially compared to North Dakota. Contrarily, however, plaintiffs assert they will call as witnesses many IMCA drivers from North Dakota. This leaves this factor essentially balanced. The interests of justice similarly do not favor defendant such that transfer is required.

    Defendant cites Terra International, Inc. v. Mississippi Chemical Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997), which identifies five additional “balance of convenience” factors and seven additional “interest of justice” factors. The Court finds unconvincing defendant’s arguments that these factors support transfer. As defendant concedes, several are either inapplicable or impossible to quantify at this point. As to those which do apply here, the Court concludes that none of them overcome plaintiff’s decision to file in this district. While there are costs and inconveniences associated with trial here which would be lessened in Iowa, the opposite is equally true. In such a situation, the Court will not upset plaintiff’s decision. Therefore, defendant’s motion to change venue is DENIED.

III. Preliminary injunction

    The Court has read the parties’ papers and concludes it requires argument on the motion for preliminary injunction. A hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on July 26, 2001, in Courtroom # 1 of the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 655 1^st Ave. N., Fargo, North Dakota. The hearing will be conducted by the Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, to whom the case is ASSIGNED for purposes of resolving the motion for preliminary injunction.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    Dated this ____ day of July, 2001.

RODNEY S. WEBB, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT