Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02560/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02560-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

06cv2560

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOREST GUARDIANS and

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the

Interior, and H. DALE HALL, Director of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Defendants,

ANADARKO PETROLEUM

CORPORATION and STATE OF

WYOMING,

Defendant-Intervenors.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-CV-02560–L(LSP)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

ANADARKO PETROLEUM

CORPORATION’S MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE [doc. # 33]

Forest Guardians and Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (“plaintiffs”) challenge the

decision of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) to withdraw its proposed rule to list the

mountain plover as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.

§§ 1531-1544. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) and the State of Wyoming were

granted leave to intervene as defendants. 

Anadarko moves to transfer the above captioned case to the United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Defendants Dirk Kempthorne and H. Dale Hall have not taken a position or responded to

the instant motion.

2 It is undisputed the mountain plover lives in both districts, and alleged threats to its

habitats in both locations are “a substantial part of the events” underlying the instant action. 28 U.S.C. §

1391(e)(2). (See Plaintiff’s Ex. 2; Complaint ¶¶ 27, 28, 46-53, 65; Answer filed 2/12/07 ¶¶ 29, 45.) The

location of the species that is the subject matter of ESA lawsuits is routinely considered in venue

challenges. E.g., Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Babbit, 1994 WL 908586, at *2 (D.D.C. April

13, 1994); McCrary, 2006 WL 1748410 at *3.

2 06cv2560

for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

Defendant-Intervenor the State of Wyoming joins in Anadarko’s motion.1

 Having fully

considered the matters presented, the Court will deny defendant’s motion to transfer venue for

the reasons set forth below. 

Discussion

As noted above, Anadarko seek to transfer this action to the District of Colorado. 

Anadarko contends that because prior related litigation between the parties occurred in

Colorado; one of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel are located in Colorado; none of the

plaintiffs or their counsel are located in the Southern District of California or have any

connection to this district; the administrative decision originated in Region 6 which is

headquartered in Colorado; the administrative record and the officials who participated in the

decision making are located in Colorado; and Colorado is the main breeding ground of the

mountain plover, Colorado is a more appropriate venue. 

1. General Venue Provision

The applicable venue provision in this case is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) that provides in

pertinent part that in a “civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United

States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority,”

venue may lie in “any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ..., or (3) the plaintiff

resides . . . .” Anadarko does not contend that venue is improper in the Southern District of

California.2

 Conceding, as it must, that California has an interest in the case because many 

mountain plovers winter in California, Anadarko nevertheless argues that venue is proper in

Colorado, Colorado has a stronger local interest in the case, and transfer of the case would be

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 The phrase “where it might have been brought” found in § 1404 means had the action

originally been brought in the transferee court, that court would have had personal jurisdiction and

subject matter jurisdiction over the action, venue would have been proper and service could have been

accomplished. In this case, it is undisputed these requirements are met. 

3 06cv2560

more convenient for the parties. 

2. Motion to Transfer Venue

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district

where the case could have been filed originally3

 for the convenience of the parties and witnesses

and in the interest of justice. A district court has discretion “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 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376

U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires the court to weigh

multiple factors to determine whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. The court may

consider: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of witnesses and the parties; (3)

the familiarity of the forum with the applicable law; (4) the ease of access to evidence; (5) any

local interest in the controversy and (6) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each

forum. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,

211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). “The question of which forum will better serve the

interest of justice is of predominant importance on the question of transfer, and the factors

involving convenience of parties and witnesses are in fact subordinate.” Wireless Consumers

Alliance, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2003 WL 22387598, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct.14, 2003). 

The moving party, in this case Anadarko, bears the burden of showing that the

inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &

P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). 

a. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum 

In the usual case, unless the balance of the § 1404(a) factors weighs heavily in favor of

the defendants, “the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” See Securities

Investor Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Decker Coal Co.

v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)(“defendant must make a strong

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4 Listing “sets in motion the Act's other provisions, including the protective regulation,

consultation requirements, and recovery efforts.” Fed'n of Fly Fishers v. Daley, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1158,

1163 (N.D. Cal. 2000), quoting S. Rep. No. 418, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1982). 

4 06cv2560

showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum”). If the balance

of convenience weighs strongly in favor of transfer, however, the Court may accord less

deference to a plaintiff's chosen forum. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805

F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981). “If the

operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no

particular interest in the parties or the subject matter, the plaintiff's choice is entitled only to

minimal consideration.” Pacific Car and Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir.

1968). 

A forum has a sufficient connection with a challenged FWS decision that will directly

impact the region in a manner beyond that of a broad, general concern for endangered species. 

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Harvey, 437 F. Supp. 2d 42, 46-47 (D.D.C. 2006); Trout Unlimited v.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 944 F. Supp. 13, 17 (D.D.C. 1996); see also McCrary, 2006 WL

1748410. *3. Because the mountain plover spends a substantial amount of time in the

geographic region of the Southern District of California, and its habitats within the region are

allegedly threatened, this district would be directly impacted by an ESA listing4

 of the bird. 

The California Department of Fish and Game reported that “a potentially pivotal role and

responsibility” is implied for California “in the future conservation of this species” due to the

fact that “upwards of 90 percent” of the mountain plover winter here. (Plaintiff’s Ex. 2, Letter

dated March 21, 2003 from Sandra C. Morey, Chief, Habitat Conservation Plaining Branch,

California Department of Fish and Game to Al Pfister, Western Colorado Field Supervisor,

FWS)

Further, the Southern District of California has a particular interest in the protection of

wildlife living in within its boundaries, and would therefore also be impacted by a decision not

to list the mountain plover. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Harvey, 437 F. Supp. 2d at 46-47. 

Further evidence of California’s interest is demonstrated by a public meeting held in El Centro,

California, concerning the mountain plover as requested by local Congressman Bob Filner, who

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 The district Congressman Filner represents has since been renumbered the 51st District.

6

Public meetings were also held in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas. 68 Fed.

Reg. at 53088. 

5 06cv2560

represented the 50th5 Congressional District of California, which lies entirely within this judicial

district.6

 See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule

to List the Mountain Plover as Threatened, 68 Fed. Reg. 53083, 53088 (Sept. 9, 2003). 

Because the Southern District of California has a significant interest in the subject matter

of and is sufficiently connected to the case, the Court will not reduce the consideration given to

plaintiff’s choice of forum. Thus, plaintiffs’ choice of forum will not be disturbed unless other

factors of convenience are strong. 

b. Balance of Convenience

In addition to considering plaintiff's choice of forum, the Court takes into account the

relative convenience to all the parties and their witnesses. See Decker, 805 F.2d at 843 (citing

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). 

Anadarko argues that the Service’s Region 6, which is headquartered in Denver, collected

data and comments, assembled the administrative record, and prepared the decision which makes

the action more conveniently heard in Colorado. Anadarko has made no showing that the

location of the headquarters of the Service Region is anything but a minor consideration in terms

of convenience to the parties and witnesses. 

Anadarko further contends that prior litigation initiated by plaintiffs in the District of

Colorado compels transfer, “absent a strong showing” by the plaintiff that this District “is more

convenient or has some superior interest.” (Motion at 7, emphasis added) Anadarko fails to

produce any legal support for its proposition that the existence of prior litigation is a burdenshifting event. Moreover, Anadarko fails to provide specific, relevant reasons why the prior

litigation favors transfer. Anadarko is not claiming that any previously initiated litigation is still

pending in Colorado. Nor has it demonstrated that the District Court in Colorado has gained

such familiarity with the underlying issues that judicial economy would favor transfer. See Joe

Boxer Corp. v. R. Siskind & Co., No. C 98-4899, 1999 WL 429549, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 28,

1999) (“it would be a waste of judicial resources to maintain two separate actions in different

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 06cv2560

districts between the same parties involving the same underlying disputes”); Comptroller of

Currency v. Calhoun First Nat’l Bank, 626 F. Supp. 137, 141 (D.D.C. 1985) (multiple pending

cases with the same factual underpinnings supported transfer where judicial resources could be

conserved by coordinating pretrial discovery and litigation within a geographical area would

save time and energy for the parties and witnesses); Home Builders Assoc. of Northern Cal. v.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 06-932, 2006 WL 3334956, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2006)

(mem.) (two prior cases, including an administrative record exceeding 30,000 pages, and the

resulting familiarity of the transferee court with the issues involved, favored transfer). 

The prior litigation in Colorado involved FOIA requests and the FWS’s failure to meet a

mandatory ESA deadline. Anadarko has failed to present evidence supporting the notion that

any of these cases resulted in the compilation of a lengthy record or provided the District Court

of Colorado with extensive familiarity with the underlying issues presented in this case. Further,

none of the cases are now pending, so the conveniences and conservation of judicial resources

available upon transfer in Calhoun First Nat’l Bank are inapplicable here. 626 F. Supp. at 141.

c. Ease of Access to the Evidence

Anadarko argues that the administrative record is located in Grand Junction, Colorado,

which favors transfer of venue. (Motion at 3) Plaintiffs assert that the “FWS plans to scan the

record and provide it to the parties electronically.” (Opp. at 10.) By whatever method it travels,

the record will have to be sent from Grand Junction to either Denver, where the District Court of

Colorado is located, or San Diego, where this Court is located. Access to evidence does not

cause a recognizable inconvenience to any party. 

d. Familiarity of each forum with the applicable law

“[W]here federal law governs all claims raised, ‘either forum is equally capable of

hearing and deciding those questions.’” Italian Colors Rest. v. Am. Express Co., 2003 WL

22682482, *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2003) (quoting DealTime.com Ltd. v. McNulty, 123 F. Supp.

2d. 750, 757 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Thus, this factor weighs in favor of neither party.

e. Local Interest

“[T]he interests of justice are promoted when a localized controversy is resolved in the

region that it impacts.” Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Harvey, 437 F. Supp. 2d at 50. As noted above, 

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 06cv2560

the Southern District of California has significant local interest in this controversy, and the

controversy directly impacts this District. The District of Colorado also has an interest in the

controversy and is directly impacted. Because the regional office of the FWS in Colorado

played a role in the decision-making, Anadarko argues that the District of Colorado maintains a

greater interest and a more significant involvement in the controversy. 

The mountain plover spends its year in numerous locations, public hearings were held in

other states, and other states have demonstrated an interest by initiating conservation efforts of

their own. See 68 Fed. Reg. at 53088, 53099. There may be numerous possibilities for venue. 

The moving party’s task is not required to convince this Court that the transferee court is the

most appropriate forum – venue is not limited to the district where the most substantial events

occurred. Ibrahim v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 1558521, *5 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2007). Indeed, it is

not appropriate to transfer a case “from a plaintiff's chosen forum simply because another forum,

in the court's view, may be superior to that chosen by the plaintiff.” Pain v. United Technologies

Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 (1981). Rather, this

Court must be persuaded that the balance of conveniences weighs heavily in favor of the transfer

in order to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum. See

Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843 (emphasis added). 

The mountain plover does not merely migrate through the Southern District of California,

it spends a significant portion of the year here. Thus, the “local interest in having localized

controversies decided at home” is shared by both districts, and therefore, this factor is neutral

and does not favor transfer. 

f. Relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum

In 2006, the median time interval from filing to disposition of civil cases in the Southern

District of California was 7.9 months. Federal Judicial Caseload Statistic, Table C-5 (2006) 

http://www.uscourts.gov/caseload2006/contents.html. In the District of Colorado, it was 8.5

months. Id. This factor is neutral and does not favor transfer. 

Conclusion

Having weighed the relevant factors, the Court finds that Anadarko has failed to meet its

“burden of showing that the balance of conveniences weighs heavily in favor of the transfer in

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 06cv2560

order to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum” as required

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

 Accordingly, Anadarko’s motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPIES TO:

LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02560-MMA-BLM Document 42 Filed 09/05/07 Page 8 of 8