314 F. Supp. 3d 126
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ March 2017 update to its water‑management plan for the Apalachicola‑Chattahoochee‑Flint (ACF) River Basin, alleging harms to the Apalachicola ecosystem in Florida and to Georgia/Alabama water resources.
- The State of Alabama filed a related suit challenging the Corps’ reallocation from Lake Lanier; Georgia and Georgia water providers intervened in both cases and moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia.
- The Court granted the transfer motions for both cases on March 29, 2018; the cases were electronically transferred to the Northern District of Georgia about 12 days later.
- Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the transfer, arguing the Court improperly treated the two related cases as essentially identical and that the transfer occurred too quickly to permit meaningful review (invoking Starnes’s 20‑day guidance).
- Defendants opposed only on jurisdictional grounds, contending the transferor court lacked authority to reconsider after the electronic transfer.
- The Court denied reconsideration, concluding D.C. Circuit precedent bars post‑transfer review absent a substantial question about the transferor court’s power to transfer, an exception plaintiffs did not invoke.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the D.D.C. may reconsider its § 1404(a) transfer after the case was electronically transferred | Transfer was too quick; Starnes requires a 20‑day delay to allow fair opportunity for review | Electronic transfer divested the court of jurisdiction; transferor lacks authority to reconsider | Transferor court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider post‑transfer; motion denied |
| Whether Starnes’s 20‑day rule governed this civil, non‑prisoner case | Starnes’ delay rule should apply to afford time to prepare reconsideration | Starnes applies principally to prisoner cases; D.C. Circuit treats failure to observe Starnes as not generally creating jurisdiction | Starnes’s 20‑day rule does not entitle plaintiffs to post‑transfer review here; even if applicable, its breach does not restore jurisdiction |
| Whether Supreme Court decision in Hamer undermines controlling D.C. Circuit precedent on jurisdictional limits | Hamer cautions against reading jurisdictional limits into statutes, so D.C. Circuit rule should be revisited | Binding D.C. Circuit precedent controls until overruled by en banc Circuit or Supreme Court | Court must follow D.C. Circuit precedent; Hamer does not permit district court to disregard it |
| Whether informal return of the case is warranted despite jurisdictional bar | Plaintiffs’ factual distinctions from Alabama warrant extraordinary reexamination | No substantial claim about the legality of the transfer and returning the case would unduly delay proceedings | Informal return unwarranted; plaintiffs failed to show substantial claim or extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (adopted rule that physical transfer of papers typically divests transferor circuit of jurisdiction and discussed longer delay for prisoner petitions)
- In re Sosa, 712 F.2d 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (post‑transfer retransfer in transferee forum is appropriate course for review)
- In re Briscoe, 976 F.2d 1425 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (theory that lack of Starnes delay ordinarily does not restore transferor court jurisdiction; informal request to transferee to return file discussed)
- In re Asemani, 455 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting Starnes’s exception where substantial issue exists as to court’s power to order transfer)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (Supreme Court cautioned against treating procedural rules as jurisdictional, relied on by plaintiffs but not enough to displace circuit precedent)
- Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 304 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2018) (related D.D.C. transfer order addressing factors favoring transfer to Northern District of Georgia)