Thomas E. West and Lisa D. West

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE:
THOMAS E. WEST AND
LISA D. WEST,
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CHAPTER 13
CASE NO. 12-60951
JUDGE RUSS KENDIG
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION (NOT
INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION)
Now before the court is Debtors’ motion to transfer venue to the divisional office located in
Akron, Ohio. 	Debtors cite Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(a)(2) as the basis for their
request. 	No notice of the motion was provided.
The court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the general order of
reference entered in this district on July 16, 1984, now superseded by General Order 2012-7 dated
April 4, 2012. 	In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1409, venue in this district and division is proper.
This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).
This opinion is not intended for publication or citation. 	The availability of this opinion, in
electronic or printed form, is not the result of a direct submission by the court.
DISCUSSION
There is no dispute that the proper venue for this case is the Northern District of Ohio. 	28
U.S.C. § 1408. 	Nor does anyone challenge that this case was appropriately assigned to the
time and date indicated, which may be materially different from its entry on the record.
of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically at the
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders
Dated: 09:46 AM April 13, 2012
12-60951-rk Doc 11 FILED 04/13/12 ENTERED 04/13/12 10:31:11 Page 1 of 3

Eastern Division, Canton, in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 1071-1. 	Relying on Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy 1014(a)(2), Debtors seek to move this case from Canton to Akron.
Debtors’ reliance on Rule 1014(a) is misplaced. 	That rule governs the inter-district
transfer of cases. 	Debtors request is for an intra-district reassignment of the case. 	The only
guidance for reassignment of cases is found in Local Bankruptcy Rule 1073-1(d) which states:
Reassignment. 	Nothing in the Local Bankruptcy Rules shall
preclude the reassignment of cases, proceedings, or matters
from one Judge to another Judge with the consent of both
Judges.
The rule simply provides that reassignment is permissible with the consent of both judges but
provides no guidance on the standard a court should employ in reassigning a case. 	In the absence
of any guidance on an appropriate standard, the court will rely on the analysis used under Rule
1014. 	In order to succeed in transferring a case, the rule requires a party to demonstrate that
transfer is either “in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.”
As the movants seeking the transfer, the burden of proof is on the debtors.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., Inc. (In re Commonwealth
Oil Refining Co., Inc.), 596 F.2d 1239, 1241 (5th Cir. 1979). 	Transfer is within the discretion of
the court. 	GEX Kentucky, Inc. v. Wolf Creek Collieries Co. (In re GEX Kentucky, Inc.), 85 B.R.
431 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987). 	“Transfer should be exercised cautiously where a case is
commenced in the proper venue.” 	In re Weatherly Frozen Food Group, Inc., 133 B.R. 862, 867
(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1991) (citation omitted).
Here, Debtors propose to disrupt assignment made in accordance with the code and rules to
move the case. 	As grounds for the transfer, they state that since Mr. West is a city councilman,
transfer is sought “to avoid any semblance of impropriety or undue embarrassment regarding his
financial distress.” 	The court finds this insufficient to warrant reassignment.
Courts traditionally consider six factors in determining whether a transfer in the interest of
justice is supported:
1) 	whether transfer would promote the economic and efficient
administration of the bankruptcy estate; 2) whether the interests
of judicial economy would be served by the transfer; 3) whether
the parties would be able to receive a fair trial in each of the
possible venues; 4) whether either forum has an interest in having
the controversy decided within its borders; 5) whether the enforce-
ability of any judgment would be affected by the transfer; and
6) whether the plaintiff's original choice of forum should be
disturbed.
Bavelis v. Doukas (In re Bavelis), 453 B.R. 832, 873 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2011) (citation omitted).
Debtors did not address any of these factors and there is simply nothing in the record that shows
12-60951-rk Doc 11 FILED 04/13/12 ENTERED 04/13/12 10:31:11 Page 2 of 3

reassigning this case to the Akron docket, with its heavier case load, promotes economy or
efficiency, which is often viewed as the paramount consideration. Mello v. Hare, Wynn, Newell &
Newton, LLP, 2010 WL 2253535 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (unreported) (citation omitted). 	The
possibility of publicity is not the equivalent of injustice.
To establish a transfer for the convenience of the parties, courts generally look at the
proximity of parties, including creditors, debtors and witnesses, to the court, as well as the location
of assets and the economic impact of administration on the estate. 	Bavelis, 453 B.R. at 869-70
(citing In re Enron Corp., 284 B.R. 376, 387 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)). 	Again, Debtors failed to
address any of these considerations. 	The court finds that a Herculean effort would be necessary to
support a transfer to Akron. 	This court is the proper forum. 	The debtors reside in this very
county and the bulk of the assets are located in this county. 	More than one half of both the
number and amount of secured creditors and debt are listed with addresses in this county.
Arguments that Akron, the improper forum a mere thirty minutes north, is more convenient, are
unavailing.
Debtors have not met their burden of proving transfer is warranted. 	The motion will be
denied. 	An order conforming to this opinion will be entered immediately.
So ordered.
# 	# 	#
Service List:
Thomas E. West
Lisa D. West
625 12th Street N.W.
Canton, OH 44703
Kathryn A. Belfance
One Cascade Plaza
#1500
Akron, OH 44308
Toby L Rosen
400 W Tuscarawas St
Charter One Bank Bldg
4th Floor
Canton, OH 44702
12-60951-rk Doc 11 FILED 04/13/12 ENTERED 04/13/12 10:31:11 Page 3 of 3