Foote v. Chu
858 F. Supp. 2d 116
D.D.C.2012Background
- Foote sues Dr. Chu in DC federal court alleging race discrimination under Title VII.
- DOE moves to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, transfer under 1404(a).
- Foote alleges a New Mexico job offer was rescinded due to Dr. Seagrave’s allegedly false report and race bias.
- EEOC complaint filed; EEOC ultimately finds no discrimination against Foote.
- Defendant amended answer to raise improper venue; motion to dismiss/transfer is fully briefed and ripe.
- Court DENIES both the motion to dismiss/transfer and addresses waiver and §1404(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of improper venue defense | Foote contends waiver not applicable to Rule 12(b)(3). | Chu argues venue defense timely raised; not waived. | Waived; improper venue defense not timely raised. |
| Effect of waiver on venue merits | Foote claims venue proper remains unaddressed by waiver. | Waiver prevents challenge to venue; merits not reached. | No ruling on merits due to waiver. |
| Transfer under § 1404(a) reasonable | New Mexico preferred; convenience and justice favor transfer. | Transfer not justified; DC proper and burdens ineffective. | Transfer not in the interest of justice; denied. |
| Private factors weighing for transfer | Plaintiff's forum outside DC not decisive; NM may be more convenient. | NM would burden Foote and counsel; private factors do not favor transfer. | Private factors do not favor transfer overall. |
| Public factors weighing for transfer | Federal law venue and relevant practices in NM support transfer. | DC has interest; NM has some interest but not overwhelming. | Public factors do not overcome overall lack of weight for transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darby v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (venue factual determinations viewed in plaintiff’s favor on Rule 12(b)(3) motion)
- Walden v. Locke, 629 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) (burden on plaintiff to show proper venue)
- Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2002) (plaintiff’s forum choice given deference unless not home forum)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (strong deference to plaintiff’s forum; transfer remains discretionary)
- Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 773 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2011) (private/public factors in § 1404(a) analysis)
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1960) (very substantial burden of showing where justice and convenience lie)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (case-by-case transfer analysis for 1404(a))
- SEC v. Savoy Indus. Inc., 587 F.2d 1149 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (broad discretion in § 1404(a) transfer decisions)