Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01240/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01240-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure 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

1

 In light of this finding, the Court does not consider East Kentucky Power

Cooperative, Inc.’s motion to intervene, also noticed for hearing on June 27, 2008. Such

motion may be renoticed for hearing before the transferee court.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

KENTUCKY ENVIRONMENTAL

FOUNDATION, and SIERRA CLUB,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, a federal

agency within the United States Department

of Agriculture,

Defendant /

No. C-08-1240 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Rural Utilities Service’s motion, filed April 30, 2008

and amended May 7, 2008, to transfer the above-titled action to the District Court for the

Eastern District of Kentucky, or, alternatively, to the District Court for the District of

Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity,

Kentucky Environmental Foundation, and Sierra Club have filed opposition, to which

defendant has replied. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition

to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision on the papers,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 27, 2008, and as set forth below, the Court

finds, for the reasons stated by defendant in its motion, the instant action should be

transferred to the Eastern District of Kentucky, pursuant to § 1404(a).1

Case 3:08-cv-01240-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The subject units, stations, and transmission line are located in Clark, Madison

and/or Garrard counties in Kentucky, (see id.); such counties are within in the Eastern

District of Kentucky, see 28 U.S.C. § 97(a).

2

In particular, because plaintiffs seek judicial review of defendant’s decision regarding

“two new . . . combustion turbine electric generating units” located in the Eastern District of

Kentucky, “two new electric switching stations” located in the Eastern District of Kentucky,

and a 36-mile “electric transmission line” located in the Eastern District of Kentucky, (see

Compl. ¶ 3),2 the “public factors” of “having localized controversies decided at home” and in

avoiding “burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty” weigh heavily in favor of

transfer. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F. 2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.

1986) (identifying factors); Trout Unlimited v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 944 F.

Supp. 13, 19 (D. D.C. 1996) (noting interest in having “localized controversy decided at

home is “compelling”; holding “[t]his policy rationale applies equally to the judicial review of

an administrative decision which will be limited to the administrative record”); see, e.g.,

Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62, 71 (D. D.C. 2003) (holding action seeking

judicial review of administrative decision, to issue mining permits for certain wetlands in

Southern Florida, properly transferred to Southern District of Florida; observing ”depth and

extent of Florida’s interest is indisputable”). Indeed, the requisite public notice provided

before defendant rendered its decision was provided in Kentucky, both through public

meetings held in Kentucky and publication in Kentucky newspapers. See 72 FR 53526-01. 

Significantly, plaintiffs cite no public factor that weighs in favor of retention of the action in

this District.

To the extent plaintiffs argue that “private factors” provide a sufficient basis to retain

the matter in this district, see Decker Coal, 805 F. 2d at 843, specifically, the deference due

plaintiffs’ choice of forum and the inconvenience plaintiffs and their counsel may experience

if the matter is transferred, the Court is not persuaded. First, plaintiffs’ choice of forum is

entitled to minimal deference because no part of their claims arose in the instant district. 

See Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F. 2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding where “operative facts

Case 3:08-cv-01240-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 3
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 Court further notes that each such plaintiff has, according to plaintiffs,

members that regularly use the subject land in Kentucky for recreation and other activities. 

(See Compl. ¶¶ 11-13.) Evidence necessary to establish such allegation is likely to be

located in Kentucky, not California. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

560-64 (1992) (holding where plaintiff organization’s standing is challenged, plaintiff must

prove member or members have suffered “injury in fact” by reason of defendant’s

decision).

3

have not occurred” in plaintiff’s chosen forum, plaintiff’s choice is “entitled only to minimal

deference”). Second, any asserted convenience to plaintiffs, each of whom is an

organization, is not entitled to significant weight; one plaintiff, Kentucky Environmental

Foundation, has its only office in Kentucky and appears to have no connection to California,

(see Compl. ¶ 12), a second plaintiff, the Sierra Club, maintains a chapter in Kentucky with

over 5000 members, (see Compl. ¶ 13), and the remaining plaintiff, the Center for

Biological Diversity, has hundreds of members in Kentucky, (see Compl. ¶ 11).3

 Finally,

the convenience of counsel is not a recognized factor. See, e.g., In re Horseshoe

Entertainment, 337 F. 3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding “factor of ‘location of counsel’ is

irrelevant and improper for consideration in determining the question of transfer of venue”);

Solomon v. Continental American Life Ins. Co., 472 F. 2d 1043, 1047 (3rd Cir. 1973)

(holding “convenience of counsel is not a factor to be considered”).

In sum, any convenience to plaintiffs’ counsel based on litigating the matter in this

District, even if cognizable and coupled with the minimal deference afforded plaintiffs’

choice of forum, is insufficient to warrant retention of the matter in this District, given the

compelling interest in having local controversies decided locally and the fact that none of

the operative facts occurred in this District.

Accordingly, the motion to transfer is hereby GRANTED, and the above-titled action

is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Kentucky. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01240-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/27/08 Page 3 of 3