Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-1738-M.
December 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, filed on October 19, 2004. For the following reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion should be DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the name "Southwest Securities Bank" does not infringe Defendant's trade name, "Southwest Bank". Plaintiff filed this action in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have their principal places of business in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. However, both also conduct business within the Dallas Division. Defendant moves the Court to transfer the case to the Fort Worth Division.
A Motion to Transfer Venue may be granted, in the interest of justice, to any other district or division where the case might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2004). The Court evaluates a Motion to Transfer Venue based upon the following factors: (1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of material witnesses, (3) the availability of process to compel the presence of unwilling witnesses, (4) the cost of obtaining the presence of witnesses, (5) the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (6) calendar congestion, (7) where the events in issue took place, and (8) the interests of justice in general. Woolf v. Mary Kay Inc., 176 F. Supp.2d 642 (N.D. Tex. 2001). Unless the balance of factors strongly favors the moving party, the plaintiff's choice of forum will seldom be disturbed. TIG Ins. Co. v. NAFCO Ins. Co., Ltd., 177 F.Supp.2d 561, 568 (N.D. Tex. 2001); citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947).
The two most important considerations in evaluating a Motion to Transfer Venue are the parties' access to witnesses and their access to other sources of proof. See Young v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 399, 401 (D.C. Tex. 1984). A party seeking to transfer a case based on the convenience of its witnesses "must clearly specify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover." Id; See also Int'l Truck and Engine Corp. v. Quintana, 259 F.Supp.2d 553, 558 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (conclusory statements regarding the convenience of witnesses are insufficient to support a motion to transfer). Defendant argues that the Fort Worth Division is more convenient than the Dallas Division because the majority of the parties' witnesses are located in the Fort Worth Division, as are documents key to the parties' dispute. However, Defendant does not identify which witnesses will be inconvenienced if the case is tried in Dallas, and Defendant does not specify what, if any difficulty it will have in transporting its documents or other tangible sources of proof between the two cities.
In response, Plaintiff identifies thirteen of its material witnesses who are located within the Dallas Division. It introduces evidence that the decision to adopt the name "Southwest Securities Bank" was made by its parent company, SWS Group, Inc. ("SWS"), which is located in Dallas. Many of Plaintiff's witnesses served on the SWS Management Committee at the time Plaintiff adopted its current name. Others are SWS employees who are located in Dallas and have material information concerning SWS's business and marketing practices. In light of this evidence, the Court finds that Defendant has not proven that the parties' access to witnesses and other sources of evidence would be enhanced by transferring the case to the Fort Worth Division.
Addressing the other factors relevant to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, the Court concludes that none is sufficiently strong to disturb Plaintiff's choice of forum. Defendant argues the events at issue in this case took place primarily in Fort Worth. However, Plaintiff's evidence indicates that the key decision to adopt the name "Southwest Securities Bank" occurred in Dallas. Defendant does not contend that a transfer to Fort Worth would aid it in obtaining process to compel witnesses, would reduce the cost of obtaining the presence of witnesses, or that there is a material difference in the congestion of the Court calendars in Dallas and Fort Worth. Although the Court recognizes that a transfer of venue might be convenient for Defendant, that consideration is not, alone, sufficient to justify disturbing Plaintiff's choice of forum. TIG Ins. Co., 177 F. Supp.2d at 568.
Because Defendant has not met its burden of proving that the balance of factors justifies transferring this case to the Fort Worth Division, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.