Preservation Society of Charleston v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
893 F. Supp. 2d 49
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege the Corps provisional approval of additional pilings under Union Pier Terminal in Charleston violates NHPA, NEPA, the Corps regulations, and the APA.
- Defendants move to transfer venue to the District of South Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The Union Pier Terminal project is local to Charleston; decisionmakers and effects are centered there.
- Provisional authorization depends on state-level certifications (Section 401 and CZMA consistency) not yet completed.
- Plaintiffs are Charleston-based organizations; defendants seek a forum where the project and effects are centered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is transfer under § 1404(a) appropriate? | District of Columbia lacks meaningful local ties; case should stay locally. | Case could have been brought in SC; transfer favors convenience and justice. | Yes; transfer appropriate. |
| Do private-interest factors weigh in favor of transfer? | Plaintiffs’ forum is Charleston; DC has no nexus. | SC has strong local ties; defendants chose plaintiffs’ home forum; convenience favors SC. | Private factors weigh heavily in favor of transfer. |
| Do public-interest factors weigh in favor of transfer? | DC is a central hub for federal agency decisions; national significance. | Local controversy with local decisionmakers; local interest supports SC. | Public factors weigh in favor of transfer, especially the local interest at home. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (transfer favored when plaintiff seeks forum of defendant or local ties exist)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (discretion in transfer decisions; case-by-case analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (basis for transfer when case could have been brought in transferee court)
- Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2003) (weighing factors in 1404(a) transfer; local interest relevant)
- Trout Unlimited v. Dep't of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1996) (private/public factors in transfer analysis; judicial review context)
- Harvey v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2006) (counsel location irrelevant to transfer outcome)
- New Hope Power Co. v. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 724 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2010) (where record was prepared and decision made informs transfer)
- Wilderness Soc’y v. Babbitt, 104 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000) (national significance considerations noted in transfer rulings)
- Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 773 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2011) (localized administrative determinations and public-interest balance)