M.M.M. ex rel. J.M.A. v. Sessions
319 F. Supp. 3d 290
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are six non‑citizen children (ages 6–13) who were separated from parents under the federal "zero‑tolerance" policy, later reunified, and now face removal; they sue on behalf of themselves and as a putative class of separated children.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants coerced parents into waiving their children's independent rights to pursue asylum and seek relief under the Fifth Amendment, the APA, mandamus, and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3).
- Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction to prevent denial of children’s ability to pursue individual asylum claims after reunification.
- Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the Southern District of California, where Judge Sabraw is overseeing Ms. L. — a related class action managing family reunification.
- The court found Counts I–III could have been brought in the Southern District of California and that judicial economy favored transfer to Judge Sabraw, but § 1252(e)(3) claims (Count IV) are exclusively cognizable in the D.C. District Court and cannot be transferred.
- The court severed Count IV (retained in D.D.C.) and transferred Counts I–III to the Southern District of California for coordinated adjudication with Ms. L.; defendants agreed not to remove parties until August 6, 2018, so no TRO was issued by this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should remain in D.D.C. or be transferred to S.D. Cal. | Plaintiffs relied on their choice of forum and argued Count IV makes transfer inappropriate because § 1252(e)(3) actions must be in D.D.C. | Defendants argued transfer to S.D. Cal. is appropriate for convenience, judicial economy, and to consolidate with related Ms. L. litigation. | Granted transfer in part: Counts I–III transferred to S.D. Cal.; Count IV severed and retained in D.D.C. |
| Whether Count IV (§ 1252(e)(3)) could be transferred to S.D. Cal. | Count IV should remain because § 1252(e)(3) vests exclusive jurisdiction in D.D.C. | Defendants did not dispute exclusivity but argued overall transfer still appropriate for other claims. | Held not transferable: § 1252(e)(3) actions may be brought only in D.D.C.; Count IV retained. |
| Whether severance is appropriate to enable transfer of some claims | Plaintiffs opposed severance as fragmenting related claims. | Defendants sought transfer of whole action; court may sever what cannot be transferred. | Court severed Count IV under Rule 21 and transferred the remaining claims to promote judicial economy and avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether consolidation with Ms. L. furthers judicial economy and consistent relief | Plaintiffs warned of inconvenience and potential prejudice from transfer. | Defendants and the court emphasized shared facts, overlapping parties, and Judge Sabraw’s ongoing supervision of reunification. | Held transfer of Counts I–III to Judge Sabraw appropriate to ensure consistent administration and efficient resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 310 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (prior class‑wide injunction and supervision of reunification process)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (forum‑transfer legal standard)
- Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 773 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2011) (courts’ broad discretion under § 1404(a))
- Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 74 F. Supp. 3d 283 (D.D.C. 2014) (severance prior to transfer under § 1404(a))
- American Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Reno, 199 F.3d 1352 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (§1252(e) bars class certification for actions subject to its judicial‑review provision)