Blakely v. Lew, 607 F. App'x 15

Appellants (Blakely, others, and two estates) seek recovery from the IRS of value of property previously forfeited under a consent judgment tied to a criminal conviction.
Appellants filed suit in the Southern District of New York after adverse rulings in the Eastern District of Michigan on the same underlying claims and facts.
Claims challenge the IRS’s refusal to treat the forfeited property as a tax payment and seek recoupment from the IRS.
Defendants are federal officers (Secretary of the Treasury and IRS Commissioner) sued in their official capacities; venue contested under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
The district court dismissed the action for improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and denied transfer to D.C. and reconsideration; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue is proper in S.D.N.Y. under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)	Venue proper because IRS communicated refusal to plaintiffs’ lawyer while he was located in S.D.N.Y. and the lawyer prepared refund claims in S.D.N.Y.	Venue improper because the events material to the claim (consent judgment, forfeiture, government’s refusal to credit) did not occur in S.D.N.Y.; local communications are de minimis	Held: Venue improper — plaintiff’s cited contacts are too insubstantial to satisfy the “substantial part” test
Whether the district court abused discretion by not transferring the case to D.C. under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)	Requested transfer as an alternative to dismissal	Court argued dismissal appropriate given forum-shopping and prior litigation history in E.D. Mich.	Held: No abuse of discretion in dismissing rather than transferring
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying reconsideration	Argued that court overlooked controlling facts/law	Court found motion repeated previously rejected arguments and did not point to overlooked controlling matters	Held: Denial of reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion

Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005) (venue statute must be construed strictly; “substantial” means significant events material to the claim)
Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine, 428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005) (identify acts giving rise to claim and whether a substantial part occurred in forum)
Friedman v. Revenue Management of New York, Inc., 38 F.3d 668 (2d Cir. 1994) (employment of a New York law firm does not alone establish substantial events in New York)
Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023 (2d Cir. 1993) (decision to transfer or dismiss lies within district court’s discretion)
Spar, Inc. v. Info. Resources, Inc., 956 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1992) (refusal to transfer appropriate where plaintiff engaged in forum shopping)
Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for motions for reargument: show the court overlooked controlling decisions or facts)