HEIDY A. CHINCHILLA-CARPIO, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER (DEF’S MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND – DKT. NO. 4; DEF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – DKT. NO. 5)
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court are Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Transfer Action to Southern District of Texas (“Motion to Transfer”) (dkt. no. 5) and Motion to Strike Judy Demand (“Motion to Strike”) (dkt. no. 4).
For the reasons set out below, the Motion to Transfer is denied. The Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint with this Court on December 12, 2013. (Dkt. no. 1.) The Complaint alleges the following. Plaintiff resides in Washoe County, Nevada. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff was stopped and detained by Border Patrol officers near Rio Grande City, Texas. Border Patrol supervisor Daniel Durant pulled Plaintiff to the ground, breaking her coccyx. Plaintiff complained of pain during her detention. She was told by a Border Patrol officer, “that is what you get for entering the country illegally, ” and she was not provided medical care.
The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”): (1) assault; (2) intentional harmful and offensive contact; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendant moves to transfer this action to the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Dkt. no. 5 at 1.) Plaintiff filed an opposition (dkt. no. 7) and Defendant filed a reply (dkt. no. 10.)
Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand on grounds that claims under the FTCA are, by statute, tried before a court without a jury. (Dkt. no. 4.) Plaintiff filed a response stating that she agrees with Defendant’s position (dkt. no. 9) and withdrew her jury demand (dkt. no. 8). Defendant did not file a reply. As Plaintiff’s jury demand has been withdrawn, the Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
The Court will now consider the Motion to Transfer.
A. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the district court has discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
In deciding a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a), the court may consider: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum; (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum; (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and (8) the ease of ...