Hueter v. Kruse
| Decision Date | 18 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-03686 (TNM) |
| Citation | 610 F.Supp.3d 60 |
| Parties | Steven Jay Pincus HUETER, Plaintiff, v. Lealaialoa Fritz Michael KRUSE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Bentley C. Adams, III, Bentley C. Adams, III, Attorney at Law, Lihue, HI, for Plaintiff.
Steven Jay Pincus Hueter, Pago Pago, AS, Pro Se.
Katherine Boyd Palmer-Ball, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Thomas Anthony Quinn, DOJ-USAO, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants Lealaialoa Fritz Michael Kruse, Scott De La Vega, Fiti Alexander Sunia.
Cathy A. Hinger, George David Carter, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Jasmine Grace Chalashtori, Lela M. Ames, Victoria Ann Bruno, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants Lolo Matalasi Moliga, American Samoa Government, COVID-19 Taskforce of American Samoa, Lemanu Palepoi Sialega Mauga, Iulogologo Joseph Pereira, Fiu J. Saelua, Talauega Eleasalo Va'alele Ale, Tuimavave Tauapai Laupola, Fainu'ulelei Falefatu Alaili Utu, Mamea Sala, Jr., John Faumuina, Motusa Tuileama Nua, Sandra King Young, Samana Semo Ve'ave’a, Mauga Tasi Asuega, Chris King, Catherine Saelua, Malemo Tausaga, Lynn Pulou Alaimalo, Talauega Samasoni Asaeli, John Suisala Muavaefa'atasi, Olivia Reid, Ella Gurr, Tuli Fruean, Tuiafono Vaiuli Sua, Taimalelagi Minnie Tuia, Taotasi Archie Soliai, Solialealofiotagaloa Mutini Ifopo, Faleosina Voigt, Fono, Savali Talavou Ale, Fetu Fetui, Jr., Vesi Talalelei Fautanu, Jr., Titiali'i Kitara Vaiau, Luaitaua Gene Pan, Vailoata Eteuati Amituana'i, Vailiuama Steve Leasiolagi, Vaetasi Tuumolimoli S. Moliga, Faimealelei Anthony Fu'e Allen, Logoituau Mark Atafua, Manumaua Wayne C. Wilson, Andra Tereise Samoa Sagote, Timusa Tini Lam Yuen, Gafatasi Afalava, Su'a Alexander Eli Jennings, Muagututi'a M. T. Tauoa, Fano Frank M. Shimasaki, Tuaolo M. Fruen, Magalei Logovii, Fonoti Tafaifa Aufata, Tuiagamoa T. Tavai, Faiivae Iuli A. Godinet.
Cathy A. Hinger, George David Carter, Jr., Jasmine Grace Chalashtori, Lela M. Ames, Victoria Ann Bruno, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Mitzie Jessop Ta'ase.
Cathy A. Hinger, Jasmine Grace Chalashtori, Lela M. Ames, Victoria Ann Bruno, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants Talauego Eleasalo Ale, Fainu'ulelei Falefatu Alailima Utu, Lefaga Fa'amao Asalele, American Samoa Defendants’.
Cathy A. Hinger, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Washington, DC, Thomas Anthony Quinn, DOJ-USAO, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant Fred Uhrle.
Thomas Anthony Quinn, DOJ-USAO, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant Debra Ann Haaland.
Scott De La Vega, Pro Se.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN, United States District Judge A plaintiff cannot sue anywhere he chooses. Aside from the prerequisites of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, a federal court simply might not be the most appropriate or convenient forum to adjudicate a controversy. In that case, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows dismissal in favor of a better venue. This is such a case.
A resident of American Samoa, Steven Jay Pincus Hueter, sues the Government of American Samoa (the Government) and over 70 of its officials for various actions taken by the Government. He also sued the Secretary of the Interior, but the Court granted her motion to dismiss. See Hueter v. Kruse , No. 20-cv-3686, 2022 WL 823066 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2022). Before the Court now are motions to dismiss from the remaining Defendants, all of whom reside in American Samoa. Because the District of Columbia is a remarkably inconvenient place to litigate a dispute between American Samoans, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
As discussed in the Court's last opinion, Hueter's claims fall into four general buckets. He first alleges that the Government's early policies to stop the spread of COVID-19, including a prohibition on public gatherings, violated several of his rights, including his right to exercise his religion. See Third Am. Compl. at 25–27, ECF No. 104 (TAC).1 He also alleges that those restrictions violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Equal Protection Clause. See id. at 20–21.
Next, he claims that members of the Fono—the American Samoan legislature—improperly used COVID relief funds. See id. at 45–46, 56–57. According to Hueter, the misuse of funds constituted a conspiracy to violate his equal protection rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). See id. at 31. Third, he challenges the decision to allow a fishing vessel to dock on the island without first passing through COVID protocols. See id. at 59–63. Hueter says that this decision also was a conspiracy intended to violate his rights. See id. at 60. Lastly, Hueter alleges violations of his rights by Chief Justice Kruse and Associate Justice Sunia during his lawsuits before the High Court of American Samoa. See id. at 24, 27–28.
For relief, Hueter requests millions in damages, see id. at 41–42, an injunction against the docking of the fishing vessel, see id. at 63, and other injunctive relief, see id. at 37–39.
All members of the Government have moved to dismiss Hueter's Complaint. See Am. Samoa Govt Defs.’ MTD, ECF No. 248 (ASG MTD); Fono Defs.’ MTD, ECF No. 250 (Fono MTD), Mamea Sala MTD, ECF No. 251 (Sala MTD). The two judges are technically federal employees because the Secretary appoints them. See Const. of Am. Samoa art. III, § 3.2 They have accordingly filed their own motion to dismiss. See Federal Defs.’ MTD, ECF No. 247 (Fed. MTD). These motions raise many threshold grounds to dismiss the Complaint, including lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, abstention doctrines, and forum non conveniens , as well as some merits grounds, like failure to state a claim. The motions are now ripe for decision.
The Supreme Court recognized long ago the "very old" problem of plaintiffs misusing venue to force trial "at a most inconvenient place for an adversary." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501, 507, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). Plaintiffs who used this tactic sought "not simply justice but perhaps justice blended with some harassment." Id. So courts developed the doctrine of forum non conveniens to deal with inappropriate forum-shopping. See Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller , 510 U.S. 443, 449–50, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994).
Forum non conveniens is "essentially[ ] a supervening venue provision, permitting displacement of the ordinary rules" when a district court declines to exercise jurisdiction. Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. , 549 U.S. 422, 429, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (cleaned up). It is a "threshold ground[ ] for denying audience on the merits," id. at 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184 (cleaned up), and a court may invoke it before resolving subject matter or personal jurisdiction, see id. at 432, 127 S.Ct. 1184.
A party seeking dismissal under forum non conveniens bears the burden to show both "(1) that an adequate alternative forum is available to hear the dispute, and (2) if so, that the balance of certain public and private interest factors strongly counsels in favor of trying the dispute in the alternative forum." In re Air Crash over the S. Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014 , 946 F.3d 607, 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ( Air Crash ). The Court must balance these factors with some deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. See Shi v. New Mighty U.S. Trust , 918 F.3d 944, 948 (D.C. Cir. 2019). And although often invoked when the other forum is in a foreign nation, forum non conveniens also allows dismissal "where a state or territorial court serves litigational convenience best." Sinochem , 549 U.S. at 430, 127 S.Ct. 1184 (emphasis added); see also 14D Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3828, pp. 566-67, and nn. 5–6 (4th ed. 2013). Above all, dismissal for forum non conveniens "is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).
The Court begins with Defendants’ proposed alternative forum, the High Court in American Samoa. See ASG MTD at 53.
"Generally, an alternative forum is adequate if the defendants are subject to service of process there and the forum permits litigation of the subject matter of the dispute." EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. , 246 F. Supp. 3d 52, 74 (D.D.C. 2017) (cleaned up). Courts have sometimes reframed the second requirement as whether the forum "would provide a plaintiff at least some remedy." Air Crash , 946 F.3d at 613.
Through his prior lawsuits, Hueter has essentially conceded the adequacy of courts in American Samoa. He has already sued most Defendants there. See Decl. of Julia Furlong ¶¶ 6–50, ECF No. 248-38 (Furlong Decl.). Those suits make clear that all Defendants are subject to service of process in American Samoa. Indeed, each has filed declarations attesting that they live and work there. See Fed. MTD, Exs. 1–2; ASG MTD, Exs. 11–36; Fono MTD, Ex. 1–18; Sala MTD, Ex. 1.
Courts in American Samoa would also give Hueter some remedy. They apply the Constitution and the laws of the United States, see Am. Samoa Code § 1.0201, meaning that they can hear and adjudicate Hueter's federal claims. See King v. Morton , 520 F.2d 1140, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (). Hueter already knows this. He filed largely identical claims there, implicitly admitting that those courts can adjudicate his claims and remedy his alleged injuries. Accord Miller v. Tri Marine Fish Co., LLC , No. 18-cv-4946, 2019 WL 1751827, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) ().
American Samoa is thus an adequate alternative forum.
Next, the Court balances the public and private interest factors. Before that evaluation, however, the Court must determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial