United States v. Bowdoin
770 F. Supp. 2d 133
D.D.C.2011Background
- Bowdoin is indicted in the District of Columbia on wire fraud, securities fraud, aiding and abetting, and unlawful sale of unregistered securities, and moves to transfer the prosecution to the Northern District of Florida for convenience and justice.
- This criminal action follows a lengthy history of civil forfeiture and enforcement actions against Bowdoin and AdSurfDaily, Inc. (ASD), beginning in 2008, involving seized real properties and bank funds and multiple related actions in DC court.
- ASD was alleged to operate a Ponzi-like paid auto-surfing program; Bowdoin was identified as CEO/President of ASD, and assets were seized in several civil actions before a 2009 consent to forfeiture by claimants under prior proceedings.
- Bowdoin and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises pursued various motions challenging forfeiture proceedings, including requests for evidentiary hearings and relief from judgment, with several orders denying relief.
- The instant change-venue motion was filed January 31, 2011, after Bowdoin had long-standing litigation in DC and the Government opposed transfer on the grounds that no substantial burden favored Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should transfer under Platt factors. | Bowdoin argues Florida for convenience and justice due to witnesses and special elements. | Government contends DC is appropriate; factors largely balanced, favoring retention. | No transfer; DC retained. |
| Impact of location of witnesses on transfer decision. | Approximately 136 defense witnesses would be Florida-based; travel costs favor Florida. | Many witnesses located elsewhere; no precise proffer of testimony; record insufficient for transfer. | Factors do not justify transfer; DC preferred. |
| Special elements, including health of defendant’s wife, warranting transfer. | Alzheimer's in Bowdoin’s wife necessitates Bowdoin’s presence in Florida. | Courts rarely transfer for health of a non-defendant family member; burden lies on showing relevance to the trial. | Insufficient special elements; no transfer. |
| Counsel location and docket considerations. | Florida counsel suggests transfer reduces personal burdens. | Government counsel would bear additional travel costs; not dispositive; factors balanced. | Court finds docket and familiarity with DC proceedings support retention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240 (Supreme Court, 1964) (ten Platt factors govern transfer decisions; none dispositive)
- United States v. Quinn, 401 F.Supp.2d 80 (D.D.C.2005) (balances factors; denial if factors equally balanced)
- Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. United States, 538 F.Supp. 200 (D.D.C.1982) (presumption against transfer; burden shows substantial inconvenience)
- Jones v. Gasch, 404 F.2d 1231 (D.C.Cir.1967) (defendant's residence is a factor but not controlling)
- United States v. Jones, 43 F.R.D. 511 (D.D.C.1967) (court considers multiple Platt factors in transfer decisions)
- United States v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 457 F.Supp. 661 (W.D. Ky.1978) (health arguments are not per se controlling in transfer rulings)
- United States v. Benjamin, 623 F.Supp. 1204 (D.D.C.1985) (Rule 21(b) convenience considerations; defendant’s convenience not sole factor)