Armstrong v. Armstrong ( 2024 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Justin Armstrong, et al., No. CV-24-00897-PHX-ROS 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 David C Armstrong, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendant Armstrong’s motion to transfer venue to the United 16 States District Court of Nevada. (Doc. 13, “Mot.”). Plaintiffs did not respond. For the 17 reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and transfer this action to the 18 District of Nevada. 19 I. Legal Standard 20 “For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 21 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been 22 brought....” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The transfer statute exists “to prevent the waste ‘of time, 23 energy and money’ and ‘to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary 24 inconvenience and expense.’” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (citation 25 omitted). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a 26 “more appropriate forum.” See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th 27 Cir. 2000). And the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer 28 an action. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he 1 district court’s decision to change venue is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Weighing of 2 the factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the 3 discretion of the trial judge.”) (citations and quotations omitted). 4 Courts consider several factors in ruling on a defendant’s motion to transfer venue: 5 (1) the convenience of the parties and witnesses, (2) the availability of 6 compulsory process to compel unwilling witness attendance, (3) the ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the differences in the costs of litigating in the 7 two forums, (5) contacts with the chosen forum, (6) jurisdiction over the 8 parties, and (7) the relative familiarity of the two courts with the applicable law and the pendency of related actions in other forums. 9 Taylor v. Republic Servs., Inc., No. CV16-02760-PHX DGC, 2016 WL 6833943, at *1 (D. 10 Ariz. Nov. 21, 2016) (citing Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 11 843 (9th Cir. 2000) and Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 12 2000)). “Courts are reluctant to upset a plaintiff’s choice of forum, but the choice ‘is 13 normally only given substantial deference if the plaintiff is a resident of the district in which 14 the action is brought. Otherwise, this bears little significance on determining whether to 15 grant a discretionary transfer.’” Taylor, 2016 WL 6833943, at *1 (quoting Miracle Blade, 16 LLC. v. Ebrands Commerce Grp., LLC., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1155 (D. Nev. 2002)). 17 II. Discussion 18 Defendant argues the above factors weigh in favor of transfer. The Court agrees. 19 First, Defendant Armstrong, and all witnesses to this case but one, reside in Reno, Nevada. 20 None of the Plaintiffs reside in Arizona; thus, their choice of forum is not entitled to 21 substantial deference. Second, the District of Nevada has the same power as this Court to 22 compel unwilling witnesses to testify. Third, the primary pieces of evidence, including the 23 decedent-at-issue’s financial accounts and his end-of-life caregivers, are located in Reno, 24 Nevada. Fourth, the travel costs of all the parties—none of whom reside in Arizona— 25 would render the matter more expensive to litigate in this Court as opposed to the District 26 of Nevada. Fifth, all of the parties have minimal contacts with Arizona, while having 27 significant contacts with Nevada. Sixth, similar to the preceding factor, Defendant claims 28 he has no contacts with Arizona and will likely contest personal jurisdiction in Arizona if 1 || the case is not transferred. Seventh, the District of Nevada is already familiar with the facts || of this case because it has been handling a related lawsuit among the parties with common 3 || claims as in the instant suit for over two years in David C. Armstrong as Trustee of the R.J. 4|| Armstrong Living Trust v. Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, No. 3:22-cv-00375-ART-CSD. 5 || Therefore, all factors, including the interests of justice, weigh in favor of transferring venue to the District of Nevada. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s motion to transfer venue (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and shall close the file. 11 Dated this 9th day of October, 2024. 12 fo - 13 C | . ES . 14 Honorab e Roslyn ©. Silver 15 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-