United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE
LOCATION OF HEARINGS
NUFFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Change Location of
Hearings (“Motion”) requesting that all hearings
be held in Salt Lake City, Utah as opposed to St. George,
Utah. The only basis identified in the Motion
for this request is “for the convenience of the parties
as counsel for all parties is located in Salt Lake
County.” This is insufficient.
district court may order any civil action to be tried at any
place within the division in which it is
pending.” “Although the Tenth Circuit has not
had occasion to set out standards for § 1404(c)
intra-district transfers, courts within the circuit have
relied on the factors developed under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a), dealing with venue transfers.” These factors
include: the plaintiff's choice of forum; the convenience
and accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof;
the cost of making the necessary proof; relative advantages
and obstacles to a fair trial; difficulties that may arise
from congested dockets; and all other considerations of a
practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and
economical. This analysis “is intended to place
discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for
transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and
analogous framework is provided in the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure which “require that prosecution must
ensue in the district where the offense occurred, absent a
statute or other procedure allowing for another
venue.” The place of trial within that district
must then be set “with due regard for the convenience
of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the
prompt administration of justice.” These factors do
not mention the convenience of counsel but refer only to
others. And substantial discretion is given to balance any
the parties have stipulated to the change of court location,
they have not provided sufficient facts for an individualized
determination that the change will be convenient and fair
considering the above factors. The location of counsel,
alone, is not enough. Therefore, the parties'
Motion is DENIED without prejudice. The next
hearing has been set for February 25, 2019, in Salt Lake
HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Motion is DENIED
without prejudice. The parties may file a renewed motion to
change location of court hearings which contains facts to
allow for an individualized determination of convenience and
 Docket no. 9, filed Jan. 3,
 Id. at 2.
 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c).
 Four Corners Nephrology Assocs., P.C.
v. Mercy Med. Ctr. of Durango, 464 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1098 (D.
Colo. 2006) (citing Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 2001 WL
1579378, at *1 (D. Colo., Dec. 10, 2001)); see also Barr v.
City of Albuquerque, 2014 WL 11497832, at *2 (D. N.M., Oct.
16, 2014); Broad Music, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rogues, Inc.,
2011 WL 13175874, at *2 (D. Wyo., Apr. 28, ...