Castellon v. Textron Aviation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ERICKA CASTELLON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXTRON AVIATION, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2014-TC-TJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Designate Wichita as the Place
of Trial (ECF No. 42). Defendant requests the Court enter an order designating Wichita, rather
than Kansas City, as the place of trial, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) and D. Kan. Rule 40.2. It
argues Wichita is a more convenient location and avoids significant travel for the majority of the
material witnesses, thereby minimizing trial delays and promoting efficiency. Plaintiff opposes
changing the trial location. For the reasons explained below, Defendant’s motion to designate
Wichita as the place of trial is denied without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action asserting claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., for employment discrimination
on the basis of disability, including disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation
arising out of her employment with Defendant. In her complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff designated
Kansas City, Kansas as the location of the trial in this matter. On April 3, 2025, Defendant filed
its Designation of Place of Trial (ECF No. 12) listing Wichita as the place of trial. The Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 39) entered in this case set the jury trial location as Kansas City, as designated by
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 9

2
Plaintiff, and set a September 15, 2025 deadline for any motion to change the trial location.
Defendant timely filed its motion to designate Wichita as the place of trial. Plaintiff filed a response
opposing the motion (ECF No. 44) and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 45).
On September 30, 3025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in Response
to Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff requests leave to file a sur-reply addressing
Defendant’s assertion that each Wichita-based witness would be required to travel to Kansas City
for trial. Plaintiff did not attach her proposed Sur-Reply to her motion as required by the Court’s
local rules.1 The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.
II. 	Legal Standards
District of Kansas Local Rule 40.2(a) requires the plaintiff to file a “request stating the
name of the city where the plaintiff desires the trial to be held.” However, the court is not bound
by the request for place of trial and it “may determine the place of trial upon motion or in its
discretion.”2 In considering motions for intra-district transfer, the courts of this district look to the
factors relevant to change of venue motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).3 Under this statute, “a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought” for the convenience of parties and witnesses.4 Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) provides
1 See D. Kan. Rule 15.1(a)(2) (requiring a party filing a motion for leave to file a document to attach
the proposed document to be filed).
2 D. Kan. Rule 40.2(e).
3 See, e.g., Llizo v. City of Topeka, Kan., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 (D. Kan. 2012); Aramburu v.
Boeing Co., 896 F. Supp. 1063, 1064 (D. Kan. 1995); Skepnek v. Roper & Twardowsky, LLC, No. 11-4102-
DDC-JPO, 2015 WL 10246976, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 27, 2015).
4 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 9

3
that “[a] district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in
which it is pending.”
Section 1404(a) gives “a district court broad discretion in deciding a motion to transfer” on
a “case-by-case” basis.5 In evaluating a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court considers
five factors: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) convenience of witnesses; (3) accessibility of
witnesses and other sources of proof; (4) the possibility of obtaining a fair trial; and (5) “all other
considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious, and economical.”6 The
plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed unless the balance weighs strongly in favor of
transfer,7 and the party moving to transfer a case bears the burden of establishing the existing
forum is inconvenient.8 Indeed, courts in this District have held that the moving party must show
the existing forum is “substantially inconvenient, not just that [the proposed new forum] is
marginally more convenient.”9
5 Spires v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., No. 06-2137-JWL, 2006 WL 1642701, at *2 (D. Kan. June 8, 2006)
(citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991)).
6 Skepnek, 2015 WL 10246976, at *1 (quoting Chrysler Credit Corp., 928 F.2d at 1515–16).
7 McDermed v. Marian Clinic, Inc., No. 14-2194-EFM-KMH, 2014 WL 6819407, at *2 (D. Kan.
Dec. 2, 2014) (citing Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992)); Escalante v. Williams, No. 17-
CV-2035-HLT-KGG, 2018 WL 4341268, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 11, 2018).
8 Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965.
9 Spires, 2006 WL 1642701, at *3; See also Menefee v. Zepick, No. 09-2127-JWL, 2009 WL
1313236, at *2 (D. Kan. May 12, 2009).
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 9

4
III. 	Analysis
A. 	Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
Generally, “[t]he plaintiff’s choice of forum weighs against transfer.”10 “Unless the balance
is strongly in favor of the movant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”11
However, the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference if the plaintiff does not reside
there or if “the facts giving rise to the lawsuit have no material relation or significant connection
to the plaintiff’s chosen forum.”12
Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Kansas City division and designated Kansas City as the
place of trial. Plaintiff states she resides in Olathe, Kansas, which is a suburb of and geographically
near Kansas City. Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff lives in Olathe, her desired trial location of
Kansas City is closer to her residence than Wichita, and this factor weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. The
Court agrees and finds this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s designation of Kansas City as place
of trial and against Defendant’s request that trial be held in Wichita.
B. 	Convenience and Accessibility of the Witnesses and Evidence
As this Court has emphasized, “[i]n deciding a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the
relative convenience of the forum is ‘a primary, if not the most important, factor to consider.’”13
Specifically, “[c]onvenience of the non-party witnesses is the most important factor to be
10 Emps. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010).
11 Id. (quoting Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965).
12 Emps. Mut. Cas., 618 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Cook v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 816
F.Supp. 667, 669 (D. Kan. 1993)).
13LeTourneau v. Venture Corp., No. 15-2629-JAR, 2018 WL 489096, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 19, 2018)
(quoting McIntosh v. City of Wichita, No. 14-2402-DDC-TJJ, 2015 WL 1646402, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 14,
2015)).
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 9

5
considered.”14 Ultimately, the Court will grant Defendant’s transfer motion only if it finds Kansas
City to be substantially inconvenient for non-party witnesses, not just that Wichita is marginally
more convenient.15 Such inconvenience requires that “all or practically all the witnesses reside in
a different forum and traveling to the proposed forum is a substantial burden.”16 The moving party
must therefore “identify the witnesses and their locations, indicate the quality or materiality of
their testimony, and indicate that depositions from witnesses who are unwilling to come to trial
would be unsatisfactory and the use of compulsory process would be necessary.”17
Defendant argues the majority of material witnesses with knowledge of Plaintiff's
employment and the decisions made regarding Plaintiff’s employment reside and work in Wichita.
While Plaintiff identifies multiple Kansas City-based healthcare providers as potential witnesses,
Defendant argues it is unclear what, if any, relevant testimony these healthcare providers would
offer that would not be cumulative of the five Wichita-based care providers. The convenience of
the Wichita-based witnesses is of heightened importance because of the materiality of their
testimony. According to Defendant, these witnesses will testify to Defendant’s knowledge of and
efforts to accommodate Plaintiff’s alleged disability, its treatment of Plaintiff during her
employment, and its policies regarding attendance and discipline. Therefore, Defendant contends
holding the trial in Wichita would avoid significant inconvenience for the majority of the material
witnesses and thus warrants holding the trial in Wichita rather than Kansas City.
14 Meek & Assocs., Inc. v. First Union Ins. Grp., No. 99-2519-CM, 2001 WL 58839, *1
(D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2001).
15 See Menefee, 2009 WL 1313236, at *2.
16 McIntosh, 2015 WL 1646402, at *2.
17 Emps. Mut. Cas. 618 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 966).
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 9

6
Plaintiff argues any potential inconvenience to witnesses who reside and work near Wichita
does not justify a change of place of trial. These individuals remain employed by Defendant and,
given the limited duration of a three-day trial, Plaintiff argues their involvement does not present
any undue hardship or logistical burden warranting transfer of the trial to Wichita. Plaintiff also
suggests these witnesses can participate remotely via videoconference to minimize travel burdens
and logistical hardship on them.
The parties’ respective Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures list both Kansas City- and Wichita-
based witnesses.18 Defendant lists six Wichita-based witnesses, all who work or worked for
Defendant in Wichita and have Wichita addresses. In addition to herself, Plaintiff lists multiple
witnesses, including eight of her healthcare providers based in the Kansas City metropolitan area
and six based in Wichita. Plaintiff also discloses six other witnesses who are not healthcare
providers, four of whom are former coworkers or a supervisor, all with Wichita addresses. Plaintiff
lists two other witnesses, a friend and former attorney, who both are located near Kansas City.
Plaintiff’s claims in this case arise from her prior employment with Defendant at its
Wichita facility. It therefore follows that the witnesses employed by Defendant at the time Plaintiff
worked there would be material witnesses to the events surrounding Plaintiff’s employment. It is
undisputed these witnesses work and reside near Wichita. The Court agrees with Defendant that
the Wichita-based witnesses would more likely be material witnesses to the events giving rise to
Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims. As Plaintiff is alleging Defendant failed to
accommodate her disabilities at the time she worked there, the Wichita-based healthcare providers
18 See parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (ECF No. 43-1 at pp. 3–15).
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 9

7
Plaintiff lists as witnesses are more likely to be called to testify at trial rather than the healthcare
providers she later saw after moving to the Kansas City area.
The Court finds Defendant has met its burden by showing that the non-party witnesses
whose testimony would be most material to the parties’ claims and defenses are located in Wichita
and therefore they would be substantially inconvenienced by being required to travel from Wichita
to Kansas City to testify at trial. Although it is unclear how many of these witnesses Defendant
would actually call to testify at trial, these witnesses would also be more accessible if the trial is
held in Wichita where they live and work. Therefore, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of
transferring trial to Wichita.
C. 	Fair Trial and Other Considerations
The final two factors are the possibility of obtaining a fair trial and “all other practical
considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and economical.”
Defendant argues there are other considerations that further tip this analysis in favor of a
Wichita trial location. Subpoenas issued to secure the trial attendance of any Textron Aviation
witness who is not an officer of the company would be subject to objection, as these witnesses
would be required to travel more than 100 miles from where they reside, are employed, or regularly
transact business in person. Defendant maintains if trial is held in Wichita, the parties would more
likely be able to secure the attendance of the Wichita-based individuals as witnesses. The Court
suspects, however, Defendant’s employees are likely to testify voluntarily without the need for
subpoenas.
Plaintiff argues transferring the trial location to Wichita would place unnecessary burdens
on her by requiring her to incur higher travel costs, impose logistical difficulties on her, and place
an emotional or physical strain on her. Plaintiff stresses she has been medically diagnosed with
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 9

8
multiple impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Plaintiff also argues,
without any substantiation, that a change of the trial location to Wichita would likely cause a
postponement and delay of the trial.
A party’s physical condition and its potential impact on the party’s ability to travel can also
be another consideration in the Court’s analysis. In Kandt v. Garden City, Kansas, the court
considered the plaintiff’s health conditions and found it a “compelling” other consideration that
weighed in favor of the plaintiff’s designation of Kansas City as the trial location.19 In that case,
the plaintiff asserted her medical conditions made travel from Kansas City to Wichita a health risk
because she suffered long term effects of Covid and a primary immune deficiency, leaving her
vulnerable to illness, often feeling fatigued, and receiving frequent infusions under the supervision
of medical personnel.
Plaintiff alleges she suffers from more than one disabling condition including migraines,
depression, anxiety, hypertonicity of pelvic floor, cutaneous allodynia and thoracic back pain.20
These conditions might significantly impede Plaintiff’s ability to travel to Wichita to attend and
stay there an estimated three days for trial. Plaintiff is also representing herself pro se so she would
be particularly disadvantaged by having to try her case in Wichita rather than in Kansas City. The
Court considers Plaintiff’s health conditions and finds this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s
designation of Kansas City as the trial location.
19 Kandt v. Garden City, Kan., No. 23-CV-2043-DDC-TJJ, 2024 WL 4554010, at *4 (D. Kan. Oct.
23, 2024).
20 Am. Compl. (ECF No. 26) ¶ 6.
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 9

9
D. 	Conclusion
The burden lies with Defendant to establish Kansas City is substantially inconvenient for
the location of trial to be moved. Here, the Court finds the convenience and accessibility of an
unknown number of Wichita-based witnesses does support holding trial in Wichita rather than
Kansas City. But it does not outweigh Plaintiff’s choice of Kansas City and the physical burden
that would be imposed upon her to travel to Wichita for the estimated 3-day trial. The Court thus
finds, at this time, the balance simply does not weigh strongly in favor of transfer, as is required
to disturb Plaintiff’s choice of trial location. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for
Wichita, Kansas to be the designated place of trial, but without prejudice to reasserting the motion
at a later time after the Court has ruled on any dispositive motions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Designate Wichita as the
Place of Trial (ECF No. 42) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in
Response to Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 46) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 4, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02014-TC Document 52 Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of 9