Lothrop v. Western Trails Charters & Tours

Background

This action arises from a bus accident in Tremonton, Utah, on December 12, 2022. The defendants are Western Trails Charters & Tours, doing business as Salt Lake Express, and Robert Todd Boggs. They moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, or alternatively to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Szamantha Lothrop opposed the motion. The court decided the motion without a hearing and denied it.

Forum non conveniens

The court denied the motion to the extent it sought dismissal under forum non conveniens. The court explained that this doctrine requires an available alternative forum in a foreign country. Because Utah is another federal district rather than a foreign country, transfer between the districts is governed by § 1404(a), not forum non conveniens.

Section 1404(a) transfer analysis

The court also denied transfer to Utah for failure to justify transfer under the relevant factors. The party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that the balance of convenience clearly favors the proposed destination. The court must first determine whether the case could have been brought there and then consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.

The court found that the first factor—the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed—favored Lothrop because she purchased her bus ticket online while in California, and the trip began in Oakland. The court also found that Lothrop’s choice of forum favored her. She stated that she was born in California, had lived there continuously, and intended to return there after the trip. The court concluded that California’s stated public policy concerning consumer protection and regulation of common carriers supported giving substantial deference to her choice.

The parties’ contacts with California and the contacts between California and Lothrop’s claims also favored keeping the case there. Lothrop purchased her ticket in California, the trip originated there, she received treatment from California physicians for her injuries, and her Medi-Cal coverage was administered by the California Department of Health Care Services. The court noted that, on the record before it, Lothrop’s contacts with Utah arose solely from the accident.

The court found that access to proof also favored Lothrop. Her California physicians were important witnesses concerning her injuries and could not be compelled to testify at a Utah trial. The court also considered her statement that travel was physically burdensome and worsened her symptoms.

The court found that the costs of litigation and the availability of compulsory process for unwilling nonparty witnesses inconvenienced both sides equally. The defendants did not provide specific evidence about the comparative costs of litigating in California and Utah. Although Utah-based medical providers and law-enforcement investigators might not be subject to compulsory process in California, Lothrop likewise could not compel her California physicians, family members, former employers, coworkers, friends, and other connections to testify in Utah. The court therefore concluded that transfer would merely shift inconvenience from the defendants to Lothrop.

The governing-law factor was neutral at most. The defendants represented that Utah law provided remedies identical or comparable to those available in California and that the Utah federal court was familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also rejected the argument that other lawsuits involving the defendants favored transfer, reasoning that moving this case to Utah would not eliminate the possibility of fragmented litigation or inconsistent rulings.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion. It denied dismissal under forum non conveniens and denied transfer to the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).