Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redevelopment and Housing, No. CIV.A. 02-2548 RMU.

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtUrbina
Citation276 F.Supp.2d 14
Decision Date11 July 2003
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A. 02-2548 RMU.
PartiesGeraldine HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Defendants.
276 F.Supp.2d 14
Geraldine HOFFMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
FAIRFAX COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 02-2548 RMU.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
July 11, 2003.

Page 15

Jonathan Eric Agin, Angela Williams Russell, Wilson Eiser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, Washington, DC, for Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Quantum Property Management, defendants.

Robert M. Ross, Office of County Atty., Fairfax, VA, for Fairfax County, defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

URBINA, District Judge.


TRANSFERRING THE ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
I. INTRODUCTION

This toxic-torts action comes before the court on various motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. Specifically, the court addresses defendant Fairfax County's motion to dismiss for lack of federal subjectmatter

Page 16

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and denies the motion because subject-matter jurisdiction exists in the form of diversity jurisdiction. The court moves on to consider the defendants' motions to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). Because venue is improper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), the court transfers the action to its sister court in the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

II. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, Geraldine Hoffman, rented an apartment located in Falls Church, Virginia, managed by defendant Quantum Real Estate Management, LLC ("defendant Quantum"). In her complaint filed on December 31, 2002, the plaintiff alleges that she paid rent for this apartment to defendants Fairfax County and Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("defendant FCRHA"). Compl. at 2. In addition, the plaintiff claims that she has suffered injuries due to the defendants' negligent use and storage of toxic chemicals in her apartment building and seeks $400,000.00 in damages. Id. at 3-4.

The defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss. Defendant Quantum filed a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue. Def. Quantum's Mot. at 1. Defendant FCRHA argues both lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue under Rule 12(b)(2) and (3), respectively. Def. FCRHA's Mot. at 1. Defendant Fairfax County seeks dismissal for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6), respectively. Def. Fairfax County's Mot. at 1.

In response to each of these motions, the plaintiff filed oppositions simply requesting that the court transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia. Pl.'s Opp'n to Def. Quantum's Mot. at 1; Pl.'s Opp'n to Def. Fairfax County's Mot. at 1; Pl.'s Opp'n to Def. FCRHA's Mot. at 1. All of the parties then jointly filed a praecipe on June 25, 2003, noting for the record that defendant Quantum has members residing in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Praecipe at 1. The court now addresses the pending motions to dismiss.

III. ANALYSIS

As noted, the defendants bring various Rule 12(b) motions, requiring the court to determine the order in which it must address these challenges. For this reason, the court must briefly clear away some legal underbrush before reaching the main issues.

The court first resolves defendant Fairfax County's motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the motions asserting improper venue. Kier Bros. Invs. v. White, 943 F.Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C.1996) (Sullivan, J.) (explaining that a court must address a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge before the question of venue). As for defendants Fairfax County's and FCRHA's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court need not address these motions because the defendants' venue challenges are dispositive of the action in this court.1 Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180, 99 S.Ct. 2710, 61 L.Ed.2d 464 (1979)

Page 17

(noting that although personal jurisdiction often is addressed before venue, "when there is a sound prudential justification for doing so, [ ] a court may reverse the normal order of considering personal jurisdiction and venue").

For the same reason, the court declines to address defendant Fairfax County's Rule 12(b)(6) motion because, as discussed later in this opinion, the court elects to transfer the action to the Eastern District of Virginia and therefore believes that the transferee court will be better situated to resolve that motion. Hafstad v. Hornick, 1987 WL 10871, at *3 (D.D.C. May 6, 1987) (Flannery, J.) (deciding that motions to transfer are properly heard before substantive motions to dismiss, reasoning that "it is fitting to leave all decisions on the merits to [the transferee] district court, rather than to tie that court's hands with substantive decisions made in this jurisdiction").

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
1. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999); Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55, 61 (D.D.C.2002) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). The court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction only if "`it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 315 F.3d 338, 343 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). In this circuit, courts must assume the truth of the allegations made and construe them in a light favorable to the plaintiff. Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)).

Because subject-matter jurisdiction focuses on the court's power to hear the plaintiff's claim, a court resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion must give the complaint's factual allegations closer scrutiny than required for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C.2001). Moreover, the court is not limited to the allegations contained in the complaint. Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Instead, to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case, the court may consider materials outside the pleadings. Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir. 1992).

2. The Court Denies Defendant Fairfax County's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because Diversity Jurisdiction Exists

A district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a case when the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 per

Page 18

plaintiff, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Gill v. United States, Civil Action No. 18-2380 (JEB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 21, 2019
    ...but it does find that it is in the interest of justice to transfer the matter. See Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redev. & Hous. Auth., 276 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2003) (declining to rule on substantive merits of defendant's motion to dismiss because transferee court would be better suited to ......
  • Shulman v. Voyou, LLC, No. CIV.A.02-1295(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • January 19, 2004
    ...(explaining that a non-corporate entity carries the citizenship of its members); Hoffman v. Fairfax County Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 276 F.Supp.2d 14, 17 (D.D.C.2003) (treating an LLC as a partnership that does "not enjoy corporate citizenship for purposes of diversity"); Johnson-Brown, ......
  • Curry v. Trans Union, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16cv824 (MHL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • April 26, 2017
    ...Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redev. & Hous. Auth., 276 F. Supp. 2d 14, 20 (D.D.C. 2003) ("[A]ll three defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia given that defendants Fairfax County and FCRHA......
  • Curry v. Trans Union, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16cv824 (MHL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • April 26, 2017
    ...Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redev. & Hous. Auth., 276 F. Supp. 2d 14, 20 (D.D.C. 2003) ("[A]ll three defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia given that defendants Fairfax County and FCRHA......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Gill v. United States, Civil Action No. 18-2380 (JEB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 21, 2019
    ...but it does find that it is in the interest of justice to transfer the matter. See Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redev. & Hous. Auth., 276 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2003) (declining to rule on substantive merits of defendant's motion to dismiss because transferee court would be better suited to ......
  • Shulman v. Voyou, LLC, No. CIV.A.02-1295(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • January 19, 2004
    ...(explaining that a non-corporate entity carries the citizenship of its members); Hoffman v. Fairfax County Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 276 F.Supp.2d 14, 17 (D.D.C.2003) (treating an LLC as a partnership that does "not enjoy corporate citizenship for purposes of diversity"); Johnson-Brown, ......
  • Curry v. Trans Union, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16cv824 (MHL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • April 26, 2017
    ...Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redev. & Hous. Auth., 276 F. Supp. 2d 14, 20 (D.D.C. 2003) ("[A]ll three defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia given that defendants Fairfax County and FCRHA......
  • Curry v. Trans Union, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16cv824 (MHL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • April 26, 2017
    ...Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Hoffman v. Fairfax Cty. Redev. & Hous. Auth., 276 F. Supp. 2d 14, 20 (D.D.C. 2003) ("[A]ll three defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia given that defendants Fairfax County and FCRHA......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT