Ctr. for Envtl. Sci., Accuracy & Reliability v. Nat'l Park Serv., Civil Action No. 14–cv–1409 BAH

• Citation: 75 F.Supp.3d 353
• Decision Date: 10 December 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14–cv–1409 BAH
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, et al., Plaintiffs, v. National Park Service, et al., Defendants.

75 F.Supp.3d 353

Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
National Park Service, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14–cv–1409 BAH

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed December 10, 2014

75 F.Supp.3d 354

Roger Joseph Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel J. Pollak, Edward S. Geldermann, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge

The Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability and Jean Sagouspe (the “plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit against the National Park Service and three government officials (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”) alleging violations of the Endangered

75 F.Supp.3d 355

Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., due to the diversion of fresh water by the Hetch Hetchy Project from the Tuolumne River to the City of San Francisco. See Compl at 1, ECF No. 1. According to the plaintiffs, this Project jeopardizes the continued existence of listed species of salmon, smelt, and sturgeon, id. ¶ 17, and adversely impacts local economic interests by diverting water needed for farming while California is experiencing severe drought conditions, id. ¶¶ 2, 18, 20. The Federal Defendants along with the City and County of San Francisco, which have moved to intervene in this action, request transfer of this case to the Eastern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defs.' Mot. to Transfer at 1, ECF. No. 17; CCSF's Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 14 (“With this Motion to Intervene, CCSF [ ] also submitted ... a Motion for Transfer of Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ” to the Eastern District of California.). For the reasons explained in more detail below, given the significant local interests implicated by this action, the Court concludes that the transfer of this case to the Eastern District of California best serves the interests of justice and, therefore, grants the defendants' motion.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A detailed statement of the facts is not necessary to comprehend the significant local interests at stake requiring transfer of this action to a federal court in the State of California. In brief, the Hetch Hetchy Project dams the Tuolumne River within Yosemite National Park to direct fresh water to San Francisco. Compl. at 11. The plaintiffs allege that this Project effects the operations of the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers as well as the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta by increasing the salinity in those waterways and thereby “jeopardiz[ing] the continued existence” of three endangered fish species.² Id. at ¶ 17.

Pending before the Court is the Federal Defendants motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California. See Defs.' Mot. to Transfer, ECF No. 17.³

75 F.Supp.3d 356

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A case may be transferred to any district where venue is also proper “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ; Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 568, 579, 187 L.Ed.2d 487 (2013) (“§ 1404(a) does not condition transfer on the initial forum's being ‘wrong’ ... it permits transfer to any district where venue is also proper (i.e. , ‘where [the case] might have been brought’) or to any other district to which the parties have agreed by contract or stipulation.”). The Supreme Court has explained that “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’ ” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964) ). Thus, “transfer in derogation of properly laid venue” in the District of Columbia “must ... be justified by particular circumstances that render the transferor forum inappropriate by reference to the considerations specified in that statute.” Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 925 (D.C.Cir.1974). The movant bears the burden of persuasion that transfer of an action is proper. SEC v. Savoy Industries, Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1154 (D.C.Cir.1978) ; Niagara Pres., Coalition, Inc. v. FERC, 956 F.Supp.2d 99, 102–103 (D.D.C.2013) ; Hooker v. NASA, 961 F.Supp.2d 295, 297 (D.D.C.2013).

III. DISCUSSION

The first step in resolving a motion for transfer of venue under § 1404(a) is to determine whether the proposed transferee district is one where the action “might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ; Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 134 S.Ct. at 579. In actions raising a federal question by naming as a defendant a federal agency or United States official in his or her official capacity, venue is proper in any judicial district where (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated;” or (3) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Both plaintiffs are residents of California, see Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, and challenge federal agency actions involving the Hetch Hetchy Project, which is located in the Eastern District of California, id. generally. Thus, the Federal Defendants correctly point out that this action “might have been brought” in the Eastern District of California. The Court therefore turns to consideration of which forum best serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice.

In resolving motions to transfer venue under Section 1404(a), courts have not limited their consideration to the express statutory factors of “convenience of parties and witnesses,” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)(1), but have also considered other private and public interests factors, which elucidate the concerns implicated by the phrase “in the interest of justice.” See, e.g., Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239Foote v. Chu, 858 F.Supp.2d 116, 120 (D.D.C.2012) ; Barham v. UBS Fin. Servs., 496 F.Supp.2d 174, 176 (D.D.C.2007) ; Trout Unlimited v. United States Dep't of Agric., 944 F.Supp. 13, 15 (D.D.C.1996). The private

75 F.Supp.3d 357

interest factors are addressed first, followed by the public interest factors.

A. Analysis of Private Interest Factors

Courts generally look to six private interest factors in evaluating transfer motions: 1) “the plaintiff's choice of forum, unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants;” Trout Unlimited, 944 F.Supp. at 16 ; 2) “the defendants' choice of forum,” id. ; 3) “whether the claim arose elsewhere,” id. ; 4) “the convenience of the parties,” id. ; 5) “the convenience of the witnesses of the plaintiff and defendant, but only to...