MacHardy v. Owners Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
GLENDA MACHARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-2061-DDC-RES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Following a car accident with an underinsured motorist, plaintiff Glenda MacHardy filed
this action against her insurer, defendant Owners Insurance Company. Though the accident
happened in Kansas, plaintiff lives in Arizona and received all post-accident medical care in
Arizona. So defendant has moved to transfer this case to the District of Arizona. Doc. 10. To
succeed on this motion, defendant must shoulder a heavy burden and show that the relevant
factors strongly favor transfer. Defendant’s transfer argument collapses under the weight of that
heavy burden, and the court thus denies its motion.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff is a citizen of Arizona. Doc. 1 at 1. She had a car insurance policy with
defendant that included underinsured-motorist benefits, with a $500,000 limit. Id. at 1–2. In
October 2022, a car in which plaintiff was a passenger had an accident with an underinsured
motorist. Id. at 2. That accident occurred in Kansas. Id. The underinsured motorist negligently
caused the collision and the motorist’s insurer offered the $25,000 liability limit. Id. Defendant,
Case 2:25-cv-02061-DDC-RES Document 60 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 6

2
plaintiff’s own insurer, failed to provide her with an offer over that $25,000 liability limit. Id.
Plaintiff then filed suit here. See generally id.
Defendant now has moved to transfer this case to Arizona—plaintiff’s home state. Doc.
10. Defendant asserts that plaintiff never received medical care for her injuries in Kansas. Id. at
2. Rather, plaintiff returned home to Arizona, where she received treatment for injuries
sustained in the accident. Id. In defendant’s view, this case hinges on plaintiff’s damages. Id. at
4. And most of the evidence and witnesses about plaintiff’s damages are located in Arizona. Id.
4–5. Thus, transfer is appropriate, defendant concludes.
II. 	Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1404 governs change of venue. It provides that, “[f]or the convenience of
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to
which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A district court has broad discretion
under § 1404(a) to adjudicate motions to transfer on a case-by-case review of convenience and
fairness. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991).
The Tenth Circuit has instructed district courts to consider the following nine factors when
determining whether to transfer a case under this provision:
• 	“plaintiff’s choice of forum;”
• 	“the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, including the
availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of witnesses;”
• 	“the cost of making the necessary proof;”
• 	“questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained;”
• 	“relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial;”
• 	“difficulties that may arise from congested dockets;”
Case 2:25-cv-02061-DDC-RES Document 60 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 6

3
• 	“the possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area of conflict of
laws;”
• 	“the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local law; and,”
• 	“all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious
and economical.”
Id. (quotation cleaned up); see also Emps. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153,
1167 (10th Cir. 2010). The party moving to transfer a case bears the burden to show that transfer
is appropriate under § 1404(a). Bartile Roofs, 618 F.3d at 1167. The movant must “demonstrate
that the balance of factors ‘strongly favors’ a transfer of venue under § 1404(a).” Id. at 1167
n.13.
III. 	Analysis
Of the nine factors articulated above, defendant raises just three: (1) plaintiff’s choice of
forum, (2), the convenience and accessibility of witnesses and evidence, and (3) choice of law.
The court considers each factor, in turn, below.
First, the court considers plaintiff’s choice of forum. “[T]he plaintiff’s choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed.” Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotation
cleaned up). But our court long has held that a plaintiff’s choice of forum “receives little
deference when the plaintiff does not reside in his or her chosen forum.” Mills v. State Corp.
Comm’n of Kan., No. 20-cv-02626-JAR-TJJ, 2021 WL 4476803, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 2021)
(collecting cases).1 A leading civil-procedure treatise is in accord. 15 Wright & Miller’s
Federal Practice & Procedure § 3848 (4th ed 2025) (“If the plaintiff is not a resident of the
1 	Plaintiff argues that Mills is “irrelevant” because it addressed an “intra-district transfer.” Doc. 14
at 3. It’s true. Mills analyzed a place-of-trial designation and considered the most convenient place for a
trial within the District of Kansas, a slightly different question than a transfer between judicial districts.
2021 WL 4476803, at *1. But Mills applied the exact same analysis the court must apply here: the
factors found in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Id. Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish Mills isn’t persuasive.
Case 2:25-cv-02061-DDC-RES Document 60 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 6

4
forum, the plaintiff's forum choice may be entitled to relatively little deference.”). Plaintiff
doesn’t live here in Kansas, yet she chose this forum. So, the court finds this factor neutral.
Second, the court must weigh “the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof,
including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of witnesses[.]” Chrysler,
928 F.2d at 1516 (quotation cleaned up). “The convenience of witnesses is the most important
factor in deciding a motion under § 1404(a).” Bartile Roofs, 618 F.3d at 1169 (quotation cleaned
up). To demonstrate that the current forum is inconvenient, a “movant must (1) identify the
witnesses and their locations; (2) indicate the quality or materiality of their testimony; and (3)
show that any such witnesses were unwilling to come to trial, that deposition testimony would be
unsatisfactory, or that the use of compulsory process would be necessary.” Id. (quotation
cleaned up).
Defendant’s efforts on this convenience factor fall far short. Defendant hasn’t identified
the relevant witnesses. He lists the following witnesses who live in Arizona: plaintiff, her
husband, plaintiff’s current and previous medical providers, and plaintiff’s employer. Doc. 20 at
4–5. He particularly emphasizes the importance of the medical providers. But defendant hasn’t
identified any of these witnesses (save plaintiff) by name. See Navajo Nation v. Urban
Outfitters, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1256–57 (D.N.M. 2013) (denying motion to transfer
where defendant referred generally to employees without identifying them by name or shown
they’re unwilling to testify in plaintiff’s chosen forum). Nor has defendant addressed the quality
or materiality of each witness’s testimony. And nowhere does defendant address whether these
witnesses are unwilling to participate in the litigation here. These “general allegation[s] that
necessary witnesses are located in the transferee forum” won’t do; our Circuit has instructed
district courts to deny motions supported by such generalized allegations. Bartile Roofs, 618
Case 2:25-cv-02061-DDC-RES Document 60 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 6

5
F.3d at 1169 (quotation cleaned up); see also Dish Techs. LLC v. WebGroup Czech Republic AS,
No. 23-cv-00553-RJS-JCB, 2024 WL 3510312, at *4 (D. Utah July 23, 2024) (concluding that
general referral to witnesses who reside elsewhere failed to satisfy defendant’s burden on
transfer motion). In sum, defendant hasn’t shown that this factor—the most important one—
favors transfer.
Third, the court considers choice of law. Defendant’s choice-of-law analysis is a single
paragraph. Doc. 10 at 6. And its reply didn’t address choice of law at all. See generally Doc.
20. The court could reject this argument as abandoned on reply. Worse still, the single
paragraph defendant dedicated to this issue is full of mushy language—i.e. “Arizona law
probably applies,” “Arizona law will, therefore, likely apply[.]” Doc. 10 at 6 (emphases added).
Such equivocation can’t carry defendant’s burden to show that the balance of factors strongly
favor transfer. And the court declines to do defendant’s work for it. Regardless, this factor
receives less weight where, as here, “the case involves relatively simple legal issues.” Bartile
Roofs, 618 F.3d at 1169 (quotation cleaned up). The court thus concludes that defendant has
failed to show that this factor favors transfer.
IV. 	Conclusion
Defendant has failed “to demonstrate that the balance of factors strongly favors a transfer
of venue under § 1404(a).” Id. at 1167 n.13. The court denies defendant’s Motion to Transfer
Venue (Doc. 10).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant Owners
Insurance Company’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 10) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 2:25-cv-02061-DDC-RES Document 60 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02061-DDC-RES Document 60 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 6