Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Allred
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25618
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs, a group of environmental organizations, sued DOI and the BLM in DC challenging three Utah land resource management plans (RMPs).
- Two intervenor-defendants, Carbon County and USITLA, moved to transfer the action to the District of Utah where the land lies.
- Evidence shows the RMPs were drafted and developed largely in Utah field offices with limited DC involvement, and final approval was issued by the Washington, DC office.
- The court considered venue under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and §1404(a), weighing private- and public-interest factors for transfer.
- The court granted the transfer motions, finding most factors weighed in favor of transferring to the District of Utah.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue was proper in the District of Utah? | S. Utah Wilderness Alliance argues DC ties justify suit here. | Carbon County and USITLA contend Utah is proper because land and planning occurred there. | Yes; venue proper in District of Utah. |
| Do private-interest factors favor transfer to Utah? | DC involvement and national scope connect to DC forum. | Most drafting occurred in Utah; DC office gave limited guidance, nexus weak. | Private factors weigh in favor of transfer. |
| Do public-interest factors favor transfer to Utah? | National environmental importance outweighs local concerns. | Utah has strong local interest and land is local to Utah. | Public factors weigh in favor of transfer. |
| Did the claim arise elsewhere such that Utah is the proper forum? | Washington, DC involvement creates nexus. | Majority events occurred in Utah; DC involvement is limited. | Most events giving rise to the claim occurred in Utah; transfer appropriate. |
| Is the convenience of witnesses and access to proof decisive? | Not explicitly discussed; potential DC witnesses complicate; Utah may be simpler. | Some witnesses/records located in Utah; transfer not prejudicial. | Not dispositive; factor neutral. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trout Unlimited v. Dep’t of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1996) (two-step transfer showing requirement and case-specific balancing)
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (private/public interest factors for venue transfer)
- Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 939 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) (local interest in deciding local controversies at home)
- Norton, 315 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2004) (local interest outweighed national interest in land disputes)
- Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2002) (agency involvement not automatically nexus; need substantial personal involvement)
- S. Utah Wilderness v. Norton, 315 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2004) (no substantial nexus from DC office; focus on location of events)