Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Federal Civil Practice Bulletin

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Miscellaneous

: Federal Civil Practice Bulletin

DDC Denies Motion to Transfer Venue in Clean Water Act Case

By A. Benjamin Spencer

ADVERTISEMENTS

Per Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2007 WL 4233745 (D.D.C. Dec. 04, 2007):

As a threshold matter, this Court first finds that plaintiffs could have originally filed suit in the Middle District of Florida because ?a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated? there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2).

Next, this Court determines that it will afford great deference to plaintiffs' choice of forum in assessing whether transfer to the Middle District of Florida is appropriate. Of the five plaintiffs that filed suit in this Court, at least one-Clean Water Action-has its headquarters in the District of Columbia, and is thus clearly a resident of this District. Consequently, this plaintiff is entitled to a strong presumption in favor of the chosen forum. Regardless of whether the remaining plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption in favor of the chosen forum, the Court determines that Clean Water Action's District of Columbia residency is sufficient to tip the balance in favor of this Court's strong presumption in favor of venue in this District.

The Court next assesses factors relating to the interests of (1) the convenience of the parties and witnesses and (2) justice, and finds that they do not favor transfer to the Middle District of Florida at this time. First, the Court notes that disposition of this case will likely be based solely on the administrative record. Contrarily, defendants assert that it may be necessary for the Court to look at limited extra-record evidence-including testimony of Florida agency staff-and that this case may not be suitable for summary judgment based solely on the administrative record. If such testimony in fact becomes necessary, defendants can at that time file another § 1404(a) motion to transfer venue setting forth justifications for transfer including whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses weigh in favor of transfer. However, at this time, the Court considers this case to be one based solely upon the administrative record, thus making the convenience of witnesses and access to proof irrelevant to the issue of transfer of venue.

. . .

Defendants and Intervenors claim that plaintiffs' ?blatant forum shopping? weighs in favor of ordering transfer to the Middle District of Florida. Such a claim concerns this Court; the similar Middle District of Florida lawsuit, Citizens for Sanity. Com Inc., filed by plaintiffs' counsel and voluntarily dismissed the following day upon being assigned to Judge Merryday tends to suggest that plaintiffs-by subsequently filing suit in this Court-may be forum-shopping. However, this Court is well-aware that for each strategic rationale that motivated plaintiffs to file suit in this District, there is likely an equally compelling strategic basis-aside from the statutory standards of convenience and justice-for defendants and Intervenors' strong desire to ensure that this litigation takes place in the Middle District of Florida. In this sense, defendants and Intervenors could be forum-shopping just as plaintiffs are allegedly doing so.

Full post as published by Federal Civil Practice Bulletin on December 06, 2007 (boomark / email).