Opinion
No. 00-1113-A.
January 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue of this civil action to the Western District of Arkansas. Having reviewed both parties' pleadings, this Court concludes that oral arguments would not assist the Court and we will resolve this motion on the pleadings.
Transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988), with consideration to the plaintiff's choice of venue, the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice. See Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers National Fund v. Baylor Heating Air Conditioning, 702 F. Supp. 1253, 1255-56 (E.D. Va. 1988). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the balance of equities, judicial economy, and the convenience of all parties and witnesses favors transfer. See Eldridge v. Bouchard, 620 F. Supp. 678, 684 (W.D. Va. 1985); General Foam Plastics Corp. v. Kraemer Export Corp., 806 F. Supp. 88, 89-90 (E.D. Va. 1992). Venue transfer may not simply shift the burden from one party to the other. See Trustees v. Best Automatic Fire Protection, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 94 (D.Md. 1983).
The plaintiff's venue selection deserves substantial weight, particularly in ERISA cases. See Baylor Heating, 702 F. Supp. at 1256;Eldridge, 620 F. Supp. at 684. ERISA's special venue provisions authorizing suits in districts where funds are administered reflects a specific Congressional intent to ease the burdens of nationwide litigation on fund administrators such as the plaintiff. See Trustees of National Asbestos Workers Pension Fund Medical Fund v. Lake Erie Insulation Co., 688 F. Supp. 1059, 1060 (D.Md. 1988); Best Automatic Fire Protection, Inc., 578 F. Supp. at 95.
Defendant attempts to distinguish Baylor and other ERISA cases which denied transfers of venue by emphasizing special factual disputes in this case over the nature of its employees' work and the credibility of the plaintiff's records. Defendant also argues that most of the witnesses at trial will be defense witnesses.
We find these arguments insufficient to meet the movant's burden. ERISA provides deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. Defendant's apparent defenses are not unique and this district is not so far from Arkansas as to significantly inconvenience any witnesses.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to remove the argument of this motion from the September 29, 2000 motions docket and to forward copies of this Order to counsel of record.