J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association, A v. Central Louisiana Ele Co Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
IN RE: 	) 	In Proceedings Under Chapter 11
)
FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 	) 	Case No. 02-50557-JWV
) 	Joint Administration
Debtors. 	)
)
J.P. MORGAN TRUST CO., N.A., as Trustee 	)
of the FI Liquidating Trust and the Liquidating 	)
Trust, 	)
Plaintiffs, 	)
v. 	) 	Adversary Proceeding No. 04-4781
)
CENTRAL LOUISIANA ELECTRIC CO., INC., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On December 2, 2004, the Defendant, Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc. (“CLE”), filed a
motion pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 7087 and 28 U.S.C. § 1412 to transfer venue of this adversary
proceeding to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division. As of
the date of this order, the Plaintiffs, J.P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A., as Trustee of the FI Liquidating
Trust and the Liquidating Trust (collectively, “FI Liquidating Trust”) had not filed a response.
In light of the legal merit of CLE’s motion and the absence of a response refuting any of
CLE’s factual assertions, the motion to transfer venue will be granted. However, in the interest of
judicial economy and in appreciation of the fact that most preference cases settle before trial, the
Court will delay the transfer of venue until the close of discovery.
Rule 7087 provides that, upon motion and a hearing, a bankruptcy court may transfer an
adversary proceeding to another district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412. Fed. R. Bank. P. 7087. The
Court may dispense with the hearing requirement where notice of the motion is properly given and
Case 04-04781-jwv Doc 29 Filed 12/30/04 Entered 12/30/04 11:29:37 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

1 Nixon Machinery Co. v. Roy Energy, Inc. (In re Nixon Machinery Co.), 27 B.R. 871,
873 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn.1983). See also, Windsor Communications Group, Inc. v. Five Towns
Stationery, Inc. (In re Windsor Communications Group, Inc.), 53 B.R. 293, 296 (Bankr. E.D.
Pa.1985) (indicating that there is a strong presumption in favor of placing venue in the district
where the bankruptcy case is pending.)
2
a hearing is not timely requested by a party in interest. 	11 U.S.C. § 102(1). 	In this case, CLE
properly gave notice of its motion and no hearing has been requested, so the Court will rule on
CLE’s motion without a hearing.
As a general matter, the venue in which the bankruptcy case is pending is presumed to be
proper for related adversary proceedings because the speedy and economic administration of cases
is a paramount consideration in the bankruptcy process.1 Section 1412, however, provides that a
district court may transfer a case or proceeding under title 11 to a district court for another district
“in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1412. Therefore, in an
effort to balance the inconveniences and hardships which normally arise whenever a change of
venue is contemplated, courts have developed several factors that may be considered when ruling
on such a motion. 	These factors include:
(1) the proximity of necessary witnesses;
(2) the relative ease of access to proof, especially documentary evidence;
(3) the economic and efficient administration of the estate; including the ability of the trustee
to litigate similar claims in the same forum with the same counsel;
(4) the location of assets;
(5) the availability of compulsory process for the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and the
cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses;
(6) the enforceability of judgment;
(7) the relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; and
Case 04-04781-jwv Doc 29 Filed 12/30/04 Entered 12/30/04 11:29:37 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3
(8) the inability of a party to defend or prosecute in the new forum.
10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 7087.02, p. 7087-3 to 7087-5 (Lawrence P. King et al. EDS., 15 th rev.
ed. Matthew Bender 2003). See also, In re Vital Link Lodi, Inc., 240 B.R. 15, 19 (Bankr. W.D.
Mo.,1999) (listing similar factors).
Upon consideration of the unopposed representations in CLE’s motion and the foregoing
guidelines, the Court finds the factors in favor of a transfer to the Western District of Louisiana
outweigh the factors against. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that venue for the above-captioned adversary proceeding shall be transferred
to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division, upon the completion
of discovery.
SO ORDERED this 30 th day of December 2004.
/s/ Jerry W. Venters
HONORABLE JERRY W. VENTERS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
A copy of the foregoing was mailed
electronically or conventionally to:
Laurence M. Frazen
Cynthia Dillard Parres
Tammie E. McVey
Stephen D. Wheelis
Case 04-04781-jwv Doc 29 Filed 12/30/04 Entered 12/30/04 11:29:37 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3