306 F. Supp. 3d 350
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (environmental organizations) challenge the U.S. Forest Service's issuance of a special-use authorization allowing the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to conduct supplemental elk feeding at Alkali Creek Feedground in the Bridger‑Teton National Forest.
- The Forest Supervisor in Wyoming prepared a Final Supplemental EIS and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the permit amendment in 2015; the permit was amended in 2016 to allow use through 2028 after the state's Chronic Wasting Disease plan was approved.
- Plaintiffs allege NEPA and APA violations: inadequate alternatives and analysis (including cumulative impacts and disease risk), failure to consider phasing out feeding, and improper delegation to the state.
- Defendants (Forest Service and Secretary of Agriculture, sued in officials’ capacities) moved to transfer the case from D.C. to the District of Wyoming under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing the dispute is localized to Wyoming.
- The District Court found the decisionmaking and the affected land/wildlife localized to Wyoming, minimized deference to plaintiff's D.C. forum choice, and concluded transfer would serve the interests of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case could have been brought in District of Wyoming (venue threshold) | Case may be brought in D.C.; did not dispute transferee’s sufficiency | Substantial events and property are in Wyoming so venue is proper there | Could have been brought in District of Wyoming — threshold satisfied |
| Deference to plaintiff's choice of forum | D.C. forum appropriate due to prior related D.C. precedent and plaintiff choice | Plaintiff's D.C. choice has tenuous ties; local decisionmakers and land are in Wyoming | Deference reduced because forum has no meaningful connection; transfer favored |
| Private‑convenience factors (where claim arose, convenience of parties/witnesses, record focus) | Convenience of D.C. counsel and existing D.C. practice weigh against transfer | Decisionmaking, land, and impacts are in Wyoming; case will be decided on administrative record | Private factors favor transfer (locus in Wyoming); convenience factors neutral because review is on the administrative record |
| Public‑interest factors (localized controversy, court congestion, familiarity with law) | Case implicates national significance of the Jackson elk herd and related precedent in D.C. | Dispute concerns a single feedground and local land/wildlife management—localized to Wyoming | Public‑interest factors favor transfer (localized controversy); congestion and familiarity factors neutral |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (court should weigh forum non conveniens factors in § 1404 analysis)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (public‑ and private‑interest factors guide transfer analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (transfer analysis is individualized, case‑by‑case)
- Adams v. Bell, 711 F.2d 161 (D.C. Cir.) (localized controversies should be decided at home)
- In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir.) (threshold: whether action might have been brought in transferee district)
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 315 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C.) (land‑use disputes are localized; supports transfer where decisionmaking occurred in transferee district)