M & N Plastics, Inc. v. Sebelius
997 F. Supp. 2d 19
D.D.C.2013Background
- This DC District Court memorandum challenges the ACA contraceptive mandate under First Amendment, RFRA, and APA.
- Defendants move to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the plaintiffs’ home district, the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Plaintiffs initially filed the identical action in Michigan (May 8, 2013) but voluntarily dismissed it (May 24, 2013).
- Plaintiffs re-filed in this court on May 31, 2013; plaintiffs reside in Michigan and the corporate plaintiff is Michigan-based.
- A key factual dispute concerns whether plaintiffs’ health plan is grandfathered from the mandate or subject to it, affecting timing and forum considerations.
- The court concludes transfer to Michigan is appropriate and granted, noting forum-shopping concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer is proper under § 1404(a). | Plaintiffs argue DC forum appropriate due to federal action and connection to statute. | Defendants contend Michigan is proper since action could have been filed there and private/public factors favor transfer. | Transfer granted to Michigan. |
| Whether private factors favor transfer to Michigan. | Michigan is less convenient for defendants; DC has some connections to the action. | Private factors favor Michigan due to plaintiffs' residence and where effects occur; witnesses largely Michigan-based. | Private factors favor Michigan. |
| Whether public factors favor transfer to Michigan. | Federal law issue is neutral; Michigan has interest in local controversy. | Public factors—local interest and Michigan forum familiarity with local effects—favor Michigan. | Public factors favor Michigan. |
| Whether plaintiffs engaged in forum shopping by refiling in DC after voluntary dismissal in Michigan. | Refiling was not forum shopping according to plaintiffs. | Re-filing here after favorable DC precedent signals forum shopping to gain advantage. | Court finds forum shopping weighed in favor of transfer; transfers to Michigan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (district court has discretion in transfer decisions)
- Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (transfer must be justified by convenience and justice)
- Barham v. UBS Fin. Servs., 496 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2007) (balance private and public interests in § 1404(a) analysis)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (avoid forum nexus manipulation; caution against forum shopping)
- Pac. Maritime Ass’n v. NLRB, 905 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2012) (connection between forum and case; local effects)
- In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (federal courts presumptively competent on federal questions)
- Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. NLRB, 2013 WL 1810636 (D.D.C. 2013) (persuasive on forum-shopping considerations in transfer)