310 F. Supp. 3d 119
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (four conservation groups) challenge NMFS’s 2014 Biological Opinion (BiOp) finding the American lobster fishery is not likely to jeopardize the North Atlantic right whale, alleging violations of the ESA, MMPA, and APA.
- The BiOp was prepared, drafted, and signed in NMFS’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) in Gloucester, Massachusetts.
- Plaintiffs filed separate suits in D.D.C.; the cases were consolidated. Defendants (Commerce/NMFS) moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the consolidated case to the District of Massachusetts.
- Threshold for transfer (whether the case "might have been brought" in transferee district) was conceded to be satisfied because one plaintiff is based in Boston and venue over federal defendants is proper in plaintiff’s residence district.
- The court analyzed private- and public-interest factors (plaintiffs’ forum choice; location of operative facts; convenience; judicial familiarity/congestion; local interest) and found private factors roughly neutral/even; public-interest factors—especially local interest—tilted against transfer because the dispute was national in scope (migratory right whales and multi-state fishery).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1404(a) transfer is proper (threshold venue) | Venue in D.D.C. is proper; transfer not required | Transferee (Mass.) is proper and threshold satisfied | Threshold satisfied for transferability (parties conceded) but not dispositive |
| Weight of plaintiffs’ choice of forum | Plaintiffs (many headquartered in D.C.) get substantial deference | Deference should be overcome because operative facts arose in MA | Plaintiffs’ forum choice entitled to substantial weight; not dispositive because facts arose elsewhere |
| Where the claim arose (operative facts) | Plaintiffs: decision impacts national resources; forum appropriate | Defendants: BiOp was prepared in GARFO (MA); claim arose in MA | Majority of operative facts occurred in MA; factor favors transfer but does not control |
| Public-interest/local interest (and overall transfer balance) | Case implicates national policy (endangered migratory species); national interest favors D.D.C. | Local fishing industry and GARFO connections favor MA | Public-interest/local-interest factors weigh heavily against transfer; transfer DENIED |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (venue threshold: case must be one that "might have been brought" in transferee district)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1404(a) transfer requires individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (courts should guard against manufactured D.C. venue by naming high government officials)
- Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (defendant bears burden to show forum inappropriate given particular circumstances)
- Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2003) (movant must show convenience and interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer)
- Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1996) (in APA cases, focus on where decisionmaking occurred to determine where claim arose)