Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02063/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02063-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCE, ACCURACY & RELIABILITY, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1409 (BAH) 

Judge Beryl A. Howell 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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 Species Act 

(“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 43214 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 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 9
2 

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 

 1

 The City and County of San Francisco (collectively “CCSF”) have moved to intervene on grounds that CCSF has a 

substantial interest in the outcome of this litigation as the “owner, operator and primary beneficiary of the water and 

power system that is the subject of the Complaint.” CCSF’s Mem. Supp. Mot. to Intervene on Behalf of Defendants 

at 1, ECF No. 14. While the Federal Defendants do not oppose this motion, see Mot. to Intervene at 2, the plaintiffs 

oppose the “motion to intervene as untimely until after the motion to transfer has been decided,” Pls.’ Opp’n to 

CCSF’s Mot. to Intervene and Request to Stay at 2, ECF No. 18. The CCSF’s motion will be transferred for 

resolution by the Eastern District of California. See Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62, 71 n.9 (D.D.C. 

2003) (“Because the court transfers this action, it leaves the pending motions to intervene to the sound discretion of 

its sister court in the Southern District of Florida.”); Martin-Trigona v. Meister, 668 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 

(declining to consider other pending motions upon transfer pursuant to section 1404(a)). 

2

 The three endangered fish species at issue are (1) the delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Compl. ¶ 12; (2) 

several salmonid species, including the Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the Central Valley SpringRun Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), id. ¶ 13; and (3) the Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), id. ¶ 14. 3

The Federal Defendants also requested a stay of the time for filing both their answer and the administrative record 

(“AR”) until after resolution of the pending transfer motion. See Defs.’ Mem at 18-21, ECF No. 17; Defs.’ Mot for 

Relief from LcvR 7(n). These requests for a stay of procedural deadlines are denied as moot since the Federal 

Defendants have already filed an Answer, see Answer to Compl., ECF No. 19, and the local civil rules of this Court 

regarding the timing for the filing of the AR will no longer apply to this action once it is transferred to the Eastern 

District of California. 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 9
3 

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, 134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (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 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. 

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (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., Coalitaion, 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 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 9
4 

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 Foote 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 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 the extent that the 

witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora,” id.; and 6) “the ease of access 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 4 of 9
5 

to sources of proof,” id. See also Montgomery v. STG Int’l, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29, 32–33 

(D.D.C. 2008) (citing Akiachak Native Cmty. v. Dep’t of Interior, 502 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C. 

2007)). 

 While the first private interest factor is neutral, the second and third factors favor transfer 

of this action to the Eastern District of California. With respect to the first factor, any deference 

given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum is minimized where the plaintiff’s “choice of forum has 

no meaningful ties to the controversy and no particular interest in the parties or the subject 

matter.” Lentz v. Eli Lilly and Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 35, 38 (D.D.C. 2006)). The dispute over the 

alleged effect of the Hetch Hetchy Project on the listed endangered fish species arises out of 

activity in the Eastern District of California, which is also the home forum of Plaintiff Sagouspe. 

Compl. ¶ 2.4

 These considerations are a significant counter-weight to the plaintiffs’ chosen 

forum in Washington, D.C. See Pac. Mar. Ass’n v. N.L.R.B., 905 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2012) 

(plaintiffs’ chosen forum afforded less deference where the “‘plaintiff’s choice of forum is not 

the plaintiff’s home forum’” (quoting Stockbridge–Munsee Cmty. v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 

2d 44, 47 (D.D.C. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. United States v. H & R Block, 

Inc., 789 F. Supp. 2d 74, 79–80 (D.D.C. 2011) (giving deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum 

when the plaintiff was the federal government with principal decision-makers located in the 

District of Columbia and activity at issue was proposed merger of two national corporations, 

operating in a national marketplace that would have nationwide antitrust implications). 

With respect to the second and third factors, the Federal Defendants proposed forum is 

the Eastern District of California, where the challenged activity is occurring. While decision-

 4

 While the organizational plaintiff is “a nonprofit California corporation,” Compl. ¶ 1, the pleadings are silent on 

whether this plaintiff maintains its principal place of business in the Eastern District of California for purposes of 

residency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). 

 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 5 of 9
6 

makers may be located in Washington D.C., the decisions themselves concern a government 

project that affects the diversion of water flows in rivers in California. See Pac. Mar. Ass’n v. 

N.L.R.B., 905 F. Supp. 2d 55, 62 (D.D.C. 2012) (transferring case to Oregon “although the 

decision at issue in this action was made in Washington, D.C., where ‘any role played by 

officials in the District of Columbia is overshadowed by the fact that their decisions were based 

on work done by government employees’ in Oregon,” quoting Airport Working Grp. of Orange 

Cnty., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 226 F. Supp. 2d 227, 230 (D.D.C.2002)). As the Federal 

Defendants explain, “the Hetch Hetchy Project facilities, the diversions from the Tuolumne 

River, the alleged effects on downstream habitat, and the cutbacks of water allegedly imposed on 

Plaintiff Sagouspe and others similarly situated, occurred or allegedly occurred in the Eastern 

District of California.” Defs.’ Mem. at 15. Indeed, the “mere involvement on the part of federal 

agencies, or some federal officials who are located in Washington, D.C. is not determinative.” 

Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 2d 21, 25-26 (D.D.C. 2002). Thus, the second 

factor, the Federal Defendants choice of forum in the Eastern District of California, and the third 

factor, where the claim arose, both weigh strongly in favor of transfer. 

The remaining three private interest factors regarding the convenience of the parties and 

witnesses, and the ease of access to proof, are largely irrelevant because the case will almost 

certainly be resolved as a matter of law based on the administrative record and no witnesses are 

likely to be called. See Pres. Soc. of Charleston v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 893 F. Supp. 2d 

49, 56 (D.D.C. 2012) (“the convenience of witnesses and the ease of access to sources of proof, 

are neutral with respect to transfer” when the case will be decided on the basis of an 

administrative record); see also Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 523 F. Supp. 2d 5, 12 (D.D.C. 

2007). Moreover, to the extent that the AR is a significant “source of proof,” “the documents 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 6 of 9
7 

comprising the administrative record that would be the basis of adjudication in this case would [] 

be primarily in the Eastern District of California” but may be electronically accessible from this 

District as well. See Defs.’ Mem. at 2. Thus, to the extent the “ease of access to proof” factor is 

relevant in this case it is of “little weight,” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 315 F. Supp. 

2d 82, 88 (D.D.C. 2004), or weighs “slightly in favor of transfer to the forum in which the 

administrative records reside.” Bergmann v. Dep’t of Transp., 710 F. Supp. 2d 65, 74–75 

(D.D.C. 2010). 

Accordingly, on balance, the private interest factors weigh in favor of transfer, with the 

second and third such factors tipping the scale in favor of adjudicating this action in the Eastern 

District of California. 

B. Analysis of Public Interest Factors 

In addition to the private interest factors above, the public interest factors also favor 

transfer. Courts typically look to three factors in evaluating the public interest: “(1) the 

transferee forum’s familiarity with the governing laws and the pendency of related actions in that 

forum; (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.” Foote v. Chu, 858 F. 

Supp. 2d 116, 123 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 773 F. Supp. 2d 41, 56 

(D.D.C. 2011)). The first two of these factors are essentially neutral. The first factor “is 

generally applied in cases that implicate state law, with which federal courts are not equally 

familiar.” Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 962 F. Supp. 2d 70, 78 (D.D.C. 2013). 

That is not the case here. On the contrary, “[t]his is an action grounded in the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 

706, and the citizen suit provisions of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. s 1540(g).” Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. 

to Transfer (“Pls.’ Opp’n”) at 25, ECF No. 20. Federal district courts have equal familiarity with 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 7 of 9
8 

these federal laws and, consequently, the first public interest factor is neutral. Second, the 

parties agree that the congestion of cases in the Eastern District of California and this Court are 

essentially equivalent and therefore this second public interest factor is neutral. See id. at 24 

(“[t]he Government has conceded that relative congestion of the two courts does not provide a 

basis for transferring venue”). 

The third public interest factor regarding local interest in this dispute strongly favors 

transfer of venue to the Eastern District of California. The Federal Defendants rightly point out 

that “the importance of water as a scarce commodity in California” creates “a very strong ‘local 

interest in making local decisions’” and militates strongly in favor of transferring this case to the 

Eastern District of California. Defs.’ Mem. at 9. California is currently “undergoing its worst 

drought in recorded history and court orders that could alter the availability or allocation of water 

are of vital local importance.” Id. at 10. The plaintiffs’ themselves allege, among other things, 

that as a result of the Federal Defendants’ handling of the Hetch Hetchy Project, there have been 

“cutbacks” in farming irrigation water. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 18, 22. Indeed, one of the plaintiffs, 

Plaintiff Sagouspe, claims to be injured by the defendants conduct because he is the owner of 

farmland in California that has been allegedly negatively affected by the water diversions at issue 

in this case. Id. ¶ 2. Thus, the Court agrees with the Federal Defendants that “the water 

distribution, irrigation, and conservation interests potentially at stake in this action are primarily 

local, satisfying the local decision criterion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” See Defs.’ 

Mem. at 10. 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 8 of 9
9 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that transfer to the Eastern District of 

California is in the interests of justice and warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, 

the defendants’ motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. 

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: December 10, 2014 

__________________________ 

BERYL A. HOWELL 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:14-cv-02063-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/10/14 Page 9 of 9