How-To: Write a Motion to Transfer Venue

"In order to meet the requirements of § 1404(a), the movant must establish "(1) that venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) that the transferor court has the power to transfer the case (that is, that the transferee court is in a district `where it might have been brought'); and (3) that the transfer is for the `convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.'" Hess v. Gray, 85 F.R.D. 15, 24 (N.D.Ill. 1979)."

1. The Transferor Court is a proper venue;
2. The Transferee Court is also a proper venue; and
3. The transfer will serve:
   1. the convenience of parties and witnesses; and
   2. the interest of justice.

"Motions to transfer are determined by consideration of the same factors relevant to a determination of a forum non conveniens motion. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 75 S. Ct. 544, 99 L. Ed. 789 (1955). They are:"

1. relative ease of access to sources of proof;

2. availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;

3. cost of attendance at trial by willing witnesses;

4. the possibility of view of the premises, if appropriate;

5. all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive;

6. "public interest" factors, including the relative congestion of court dockets, choice of law considerations, and the relation of the community in which the courts and jurors are required to serve to the occurrences that give rise to the litigation.

1. ease of access to proof;
2. availability of compulsory processs of unwilling witnesses;
3. cost of attendance at trial;
4. possibility of view of the premises;
5. all other practical problems (easy, expeditions, inexpensive); and
6. public interest factors (docket congestion; choice of law; relation of the community; jurors)

"a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial weight and is thus "a paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request..."

"To permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent."

"Moreover, we also believe that in an appropriate case the court may properly consider whether judicial efficiency would be served by enabling the judge who has presided over the pre-trial phase of a multi-district proceeding, and thereby has become familiar with the parties and the issues, to try the actions himself rather than to return them to one or more district judges who must acquaint themselves with the cases' complexities."

"One of the prime components of the "interest of justice" is the maintenance of sound judicial administration... Central to efficient and effective judicial administration is a policy, implied in section 1404(a), of proper conservation and utilization of judicial resources."

"In Abbott Laboratories, supra, 387 U.S. at 154-5, 87 S. Ct. at 1519, the Supreme Court discussed the government's fear of a "multiplicity of suits in various jurisdictions" all dealing with the same subject matter. The Court stated:"

"There can be no argument with the position that the avoidance of multiple litigation of the same, or related, issues in more than one court, and the resulting conservation of judicial resources, is a strong interest of justice factor."

"Allowing [the transferee judge] to interpret the scope of [plaintiff’s] protective order would be the most efficient use of judicial resources. Moreover, a transfer to the District of Columbia court avoids duplication of judicial efforts since that court has at least some familiarity with these documents. Thus, the public interest in conserving judicial resources strongly supports my decision to transfer this action."

Where the jurisdictional amount is not satisfied, transfer to the proper court is mandatory, not discretionary.

• see Johnson v Payless, 950 F.2d 586 (9th Cir. 1991)

• Contact TBD for more free samples