Nicolas VILLA, Jr., Chief, Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Lee SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 12-1086 (RMC)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
March 28, 2013
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
The FBI indicated in its motion that its FOIA processing unit received the 25,000 potentially responsive pages by no later than July 30, 2012. First Hardy Decl. 121. Therefore, as set forth in the accompanying Order, the FBI shall be required to produce all responsive, nonexempt records not subject to classification/declassification review on a rolling basis, but in any event by no later than August 1, 2013. Furthermore, by no later than May 31, 2013, the FBI shall indicate how many pages are subject to classification/declassification review, and propose a deadline for completing production of those documents, as appropriate.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Nicolas Villa, Jr., challenges the decision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to acquire in trust a parcel of land in Amador County, California, for Indian gaming purposes. Chief Villa alleges that Interior should not have acquired the land and should not have recognized the Ione Band of Miwok Indians as a “restored tribe” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because that group is unconnected to the tribe led by Chief Villa, called the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California. Interior moves to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. For the following reasons, transfer will be granted.
I. FACTS
A. Background and Procedural History
On June 29, 2012, Chief Villa filed his Complaint against Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and Kevin K. Washburn,1 Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior (collectively, “Interior“). See Compl. [Dkt. 1]. Chief Villa avers that he “heads the Tribe known as the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California that for centuries has inhabited lands in present day Amador County, California.” Id. ¶ 8. Chief Villa‘s allegations concern a “group calling itself the Ione Band of Miwok Indians,” which “includes as purported members persons with little or no ancestral or other connection to the historic Tribe headed by [Chief] Villa and his father.” Id. ¶ 12.
According to Chief Villa, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians applied to Interior in 2004 for an “opinion as to whether the Plymouth Tracts,” a 228-acre parcel of land in Amador County, “would qualify for gaming if [Interior] agreed to acquire the lands in trust for its benefit” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (“IGRA“),
On January 18, 2013, Interior filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, relying in large part on the fact that two similar cases are pending in that court. See Mot. Transfer [Dkt. 7]. Chief Villa opposed the motion. See Opp. [Dkt. 10]. Interior filed its Reply on March 22, 2013, see Dkt. 11, and the matter is now ripe for decision.
B. The California Cases
Interior‘s Motion to Transfer is premised on the pendency of “two ongoing, related actions in the Eastern District of California” (“California cases“) that, according to Interior, involve “the same agency decision” at issue in this case. Mot. Transfer at 7. Interior did not provide this Court with any identifying information for the California cases. The Court has located and takes judicial notice2 of County of Amador v. United States Department of the Interior, et al., Case no. 2:12-cv-0710-JAM-CKD (E.D.Cal. filed June 27, 2012) (“County of Amador“), and No Casino in Plymouth, et al. v. Salazar, et al., Case no. 2:12-cv-01748-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal. filed June 29, 2012) (“No Casino“). The California cases have been deemed related and are both before the Honorable John A. Mendez and Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison. See Related Case Order, County of Amador [Dkt. 10], (E.D.Cal. July 24, 2012). Judge Mendez sits in the United States Courthouse in Sacramento, which is approximately forty-two miles driving distance from Ione, California, where Chief Villa lives.3
Both County of Amador and No Casino involve APA challenges to Interior‘s May 24, 2012 administrative decision approving the acquisition of the Plymouth Parcels and, in particular, to the determination that the parcels are “restored lands” on the basis of the “restored tribe” status of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians.4 See First Am. Compl., County of Amador, [Dkt. 14] (E.D.Cal. Sept. 20, 2012); First Am. Compl., No Casino, [Dkt. 10] (E.D.Cal. Oct. 1, 2012). In County of Amador, Interior answered the First Amended Complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff County moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Judge Mendez held a hearing on February 6, 2013, and took both motions under advisement. In No Casino, Interior answered the First Amended Complaint on December 10, 2012, and the parties filed a joint status report that same day. On December 12, 2012, the court directed the parties to file a joint status report no later than May 3, 2013; that entry is the last that appears on the docket.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
Under § 1404(a), a court must balance a number of case-specific private and public interest factors. See Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 30. Specifically: The private interest considerations include: (1) the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants; (2) the defendants’ choice of forum; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses . . . but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) the ease of access to sources of proof. The public interest considerations include: (1) the transferee‘s familiarity with the governing laws; (2) the relative congestion of the calendars of the potential transferee and transferor courts; and (3) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home. Trout Unlimited, 944 F.Supp. at 16.
Generally, a “[p]laintiff‘s choice of forum is given paramount consideration and the burden of demonstrating that an action should be transferred is on the movant.” Air Line Pilots Ass‘n v. E. Air Lines, 672 F.Supp. 525, 526 (D.D.C.1987). However, a transfer may be “appropriate when there is an ongoing related case in another jurisdiction.” Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F.Supp.2d 76, 80 (D.D.C.2009) (citing In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717, 721 & n. 10 (D.C.Cir.1983)); see also Biochem Pharma, Inc. v. Emory Univ., 148 F.Supp.2d 11, 13-14 (D.D.C.2001). “When lawsuits involving the same controversy are filed in more than one jurisdiction, the general rule is that the court that first acquired jurisdiction has priority.” Biochem Pharma, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d at 13 (citing Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat‘l Bank, 525 F.2d 620, 627 (D.C.Cir.1975)). The D.C. Circuit views this “first-filed” concept as a guide, not a rule, and requires weighing equitable considerations in determining whether to transfer a case. See Columbia Plaza Corp., 525 F.2d at 627-29.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Venue is Proper in the Eastern District of California
The Court must first address whether venue would be proper in the transferee court proposed by Interior, the Eastern District of California.5 Interior
The Court finds that venue is proper in this case both in the District of Columbia and in the Eastern District of California. Venue is proper in this Court under
Accordingly, the question becomes whether transfer is appropriate under
B. Transfer Is in the Interest of Justice
In its Motion to Transfer, Interior emphasizes two factors that weigh in favor of transfer. Mot. Transfer at 7-9. First, Interior asserts that “preventing unnecessary expense to the public and duplicative use of judicial resources” favors transfer because this case and the California cases “all seek judicial review of the same agen-
Chief Villa responds that the Court should “exercise [its] discretion in favor of retaining jurisdiction” in this district. Opp. at 2-3. He notes that the District of Columbia was the forum he chose and asserts that there are “national implications” raised by the acquisition of the Plymouth Tracts. Id. In addition, Chief Villa contends that a transfer is not warranted because the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is severely overworked and because “Mr. Villa‘s counsel are not admitted in the Eastern District of California, and have not been retained for purposes of representation in the matter there.” Id. at 3-5. Chief Villa relies principally on the recent decision of another judge of this Court, Stand Up for California! v. Department of the Interior (“Stand Up!“), 919 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C.2013), in which the Honorable Beryl Howell declined to transfer a similar fee-to-trust action to the Eastern District of California under
After weighing all of the public and private interest considerations, see Trout Unlimited, 944 F.Supp. at 16, the Court finds that a transfer to the Eastern District of California is appropriate under
The factors relied on by Chief Villa ordinarily would counsel for retention in this district. However, the fact that he has chosen this forum is entitled to less deference than it otherwise would be because he is a “non-resident who lacks a substantial connection to the chosen forum.” Elemary v. Philipp Holzmann A.G., 533 F.Supp.2d 144, 150 (D.D.C.2008) (citation omitted). The Eastern District of California is located much closer to Chief Villa‘s home and is perfectly capable of deciding this case carefully and fairly, further minimizing any concerns about the convenience of the transferee forum for Chief Villa. While Chief Villa‘s counsel may not yet be admitted in that court, that factor is not dispositive. Moreover, the Court notes that along with the signature of local counsel, Chief Villa‘s opposition bears the signature of an attorney from Oklahoma who, according to the opposition, intends to file a motion for pro hac vice admission to this Court. See Opp. at 5-6. Chief Villa has made no argument as to why his counsel cannot make a similar arrangement in California.
The congestion in the Eastern District of California recognized by the Stand Up! court would ordinarily weigh in favor of this Court retaining the case. However, any marginal likelihood that this Court would resolve the case with more speed is outweighed by the fact that the Eastern District of California is already reviewing the same Record of Decision and will be doing so without regard to whether this Court retains this case. There is no reason to have two courts reviewing the same administrative record without extraordinary need or other distinguishing features, which are not present here. Moreover, notwithstanding the similarities between the claims in Stand Up! and this case, Chief Villa‘s reliance on that case is unpersuasive. The Stand Up! court, which issued its ruling on January 29, 2013, emphasized that “[o]f overarching importance” in its decision not to transfer the case was the fact that “the government defendants . . . [had] made clear that they [would] transfer the Madera Site into trust on February 1, 2013 regardless of whether any court [had] yet made a ruling on whether the plaintiffs [were] entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.” Stand Up for California!, 919 F.Supp.2d at 65. For that reason, the Stand Up! court reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction at the same time it issued its ruling on venue transfer, denying preliminary injunctive relief after lengthy analysis. See id. at 66-85, at *10-28 (“[A]bsent a demonstrated likelihood that the Secretary has acted improperly in transferring the Madera Site into trust for the purpose of developing a gaming establishment, enjoining that agency action would not be in the public interest.“). The impending transfer in Stand Up! is an important distinction that fully explains that court‘s decision to retain jurisdiction, but there is no such exigency here.
The Court thus finds that the “consideration[s] of convenience and fairness” in this case weigh in favor of transfer to the Eastern District of California under
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Interior‘s Motion to Transfer, Dkt. 7, will be granted. A memorializing Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE