Pacific Solar Energy, SA de CV v. United States Department of the Treasury
1:16-cv-25324
S.D. Fla.Dec 29, 2017Background
- Pacific Solar Energy wired a $105,028.05 insurance premium from its Miami bank to a Honduran insurer on October 7, 2015; the transfer was blocked after OFAC designated the insurer under the Kingpin Act.
- Plaintiff applied for an OFAC license to release the blocked funds (Nov. 23, 2015), was denied (Mar. 28, 2016), requested reconsideration, and was denied again (Nov. 14, 2016).
- OFAC’s decisions on the license and reconsideration were made by staff in Washington, D.C.; OFAC has a small Miami office of three employees that did not handle Plaintiff’s matter.
- Plaintiff sued in the Southern District of Florida seeking review of OFAC’s denial; Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer to D.C.
- The court analyzed venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) (defendant residence) and § 1391(e)(1)(B) (events giving rise to the claim) and considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper under § 1391(e)(1)(A) (where a defendant "resides") | OFAC has an office in Miami that handles licensing, so OFAC resides in S.D. Fla. | Defendants perform official duties at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; Miami office is small and did not handle this matter. | Venue not proper: OFAC’s Miami office did not handle the claim, so Defendants reside in D.C. |
| Whether venue is proper under § 1391(e)(1)(B) (where substantial part of events occurred) | Key events (funds held/sent/blocked; Plaintiff’s personnel and counsel located in Miami) occurred in S.D. Fla. | Relevant wrongful acts (license denial and reconsideration) and decisionmaking occurred in D.C.; bank events are causal but not the defendant’s wrongful acts. | Venue not proper: the acts giving rise to the claim occurred in D.C., not S.D. Fla. |
| Whether the case should be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a) | Plaintiff urges court to respect Plaintiff’s choice of forum and convenience to keep case in Miami. | Defendants request dismissal or transfer to D.C.; argue § 1406(a) applies because venue is improper. | Transfer in the interest of justice: case transferred to the District of Columbia rather than dismissed. |
| Whether legislative intent or circuit precedent supports expansive venue | Plaintiff cites § 1391(e) history and favorable Eleventh Circuit precedent (World Fuel) to support venue here. | Defendants argue statute and precedent limit residence to where officials perform duties; forum-shopping must be avoided. | Court rejects expansive reading and finds precedent/statutory text favor limiting residence to where official duties occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) (only locations with a close nexus to the claim count for § 1391 venue analysis)
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (dismissal or transfer appropriate when venue is wrong; transfer favored in interest of justice)
- Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. F.T.C., 580 F.2d 264 (7th Cir. 1978) (an agency is not a resident of a district merely because it has a regional office there)
- A.J. Taft Coal Co. v. Barnhart, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Ala. 2003) (focus on defendant’s actions; venue proper where administrative decision was made)
- Delong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff bears burden to make a prima facie showing of venue when no evidentiary hearing held)
- Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2012) (court may consider affidavits and other evidence in resolving a Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion)