Defense Distributed v. Bruck
30 F.4th 414
| 5th Cir. | 2022Background
- Defense Distributed (DDS) published 3D‑printing CAD files for a plastic pistol (2012–2013; briefly in 2018). The State Department later treated the files as export‑controlled, leading to prolonged litigation and a 2018 settlement license that was then challenged.
- Nine state Attorneys General, led by New Jersey’s AG (Grewal), sued in Washington and obtained injunctive relief blocking the effective release of the files; DDS and SAF sued various officials in the Western District of Texas asserting First Amendment and related claims.
- After this Court held the New Jersey AG amenable to jurisdiction in Texas, DDS amended to add the State Department; the NJAG moved to sever DDS’s claims against him and transfer that portion to the District of New Jersey, which the Texas district court granted.
- DDS immediately appealed and sought mandamus relief in the Fifth Circuit; the transferred case in New Jersey was stayed pending this appeal. The core dispute implicated whether severance plus intercircuit transfer was appropriate and whether mandamus review was available.
- The Fifth Circuit majority concluded the district court abused its discretion in severing and transferring: mandamus was appropriate, and the court ordered vacatur of the transfer, a request for retransfer, and reconsolidation with the remaining Texas action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of mandamus to review an intercircuit §1404(a) transfer | Mandamus is available in the transferor circuit to review intercircuit transfers and DDS acted diligently | NJAG argued mandamus improper because transferee circuit or other remedies suffice and DDS was not diligent | Mandamus is available here; DDS was diligent and mandamus jurisdiction exists under In re Red Barn and related precedent |
| Whether severance (Rule 21) was proper when combined with transfer | Severance was improper because claims against NJAG and State Dept are factually and temporally intertwined and central First Amendment issues would be split | NJAG asserted efficiency and that New Jersey was a more appropriate forum for claims implicating New Jersey law | Severance was a clear abuse of discretion: the claims are intertwined and severance+transfer would risk duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings |
| Proper application of Rule 21 severance factors | Factors (same transaction, common questions, judicial economy, prejudice, witnesses) favor denying severance because of overlap and national constitutional stakes | NJAG asserted limited overlap and existing New Jersey litigation makes transfer efficient | Court held district court misapplied severance factors and erred in finding no common transaction or prejudice to DDS |
| Proper application of §1404(a) transfer factors (Volkswagen) | DDS’s choice of forum, Texas connections, overlap of proof and witnesses, and public interest in unified resolution favor retaining venue | NJAG argued private and public factors favor New Jersey, including local interest in testing state statute | Court found NJAG failed to show good cause; district court misweighed private and public factors and abused discretion in granting transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (governing §1404(a) transfer factors and deference to plaintiff’s forum)
- In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 2014) (guidance on joint severance and transfer and when severance+transfer undermines judicial economy)
- In re Red Barn Motors, Inc., 794 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2015) (mandamus jurisdiction and approach to intercircuit transfer remedies)
- Defense Distributed v. Grewal, 971 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding NJAG amenable to personal jurisdiction in Texas)
- Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) (background on the CAD files litigation and State Department involvement)
- Liaw Su Teng v. Skaarup Shipping Corp., 743 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1984) (Judge Rubin’s factors on splitting multi‑defendant suits and related inefficiencies)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (mandamus standards)
- In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2017) (Third Circuit recognition of mandamus review for intercircuit transfer)