Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03232/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03232-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

and

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION, SAN LUIS & DELTAMENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, AND

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT,

Intervenor Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-05-3232 JCS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE [Docket No. 60]

I. INTRODUCTION

On Friday, January 20, 2006, Federal Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (the “Motion”),

in which Defendant-Intervenors have joined, came on for hearing. Another judge of this court has

previously transferred a companion action, Natural Resources Defense Counsel, et al. v. Norton, et

al. (“NRDC v. Norton”), Case No. C-05-0690 CW, to Judge Wanger of the Eastern District. These

two cases have (1) overlapping facts and legal issues and (2) arise out of the same agency action. In

light of the danger of inconsistent relief, these two cases should be decided by the same court. 

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

This action was filed on August 9, 2005. In it, Plaintiffs challenge the legality of a biological

opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NFMS”) in connection with the “LongTerm Central Valley Project Operations Criteria and Plan” (“2004 OCAP”), issued by the United

Case 3:05-cv-03232-JCS Document 111 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

States Bureau of Reclamation. The 2004 OCAP sets forth a joint operating plan for the federal

Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State Water Project (“SWP”) operated by the Bureau of

Reclamation. On the same day that Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action, they also filed a

motion to relate the case to an earlier filed action then pending before Judge Wilken, NRDC v.

Norton. In that action, Plaintiffs challenged the legality of another biological opinion, issued by the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), also in connection with the 2004 OCAP.

In their Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related (the “Motion

to Relate”), filed on August 9, 2005, Plaintiffs described the relationship between the two actions:

The new action and NRDC v. Norton share many of the same factual

and legal issues such that their assignment to a single judge would

avoid significant duplication of labor and expense. Both cases involve

the same water projects, the same operating plan and the same changes

in future operations. Specifically, both involve the substantial changes

to CVP and SWP operations set forth in the 2004 OCAP, and both

represent an attempt by environmental and fishing groups to ensure

that the impacts of these operational changes on federally listed fish

species are adequately considered before these changes are further

implemented. Both cases will require the court to familiarize itself

with the 2004 OCAP. not only in terms of changed operations

proposed therein, but in terms of the environmental (and especially

fishery) impacts of those changed operations, such as elevated water

temperatures and habitat degradation.

Both cases also share common legal questions. For example, both

cases will require the court to address whether NMFS and FWS

complied with the identical [Endangered Species Act] Section 7

requirements that govern the preparation of biological opinions. In

doing so, each court will have to consider such questions as whether

the “no jeopardy” conclusion in each case is reasonable in light of the

2004 OCAP’s significant intensification of CVP and SWP operations,

and whether the “adaptive management” scheme and other future

mitigation measures proposed in association with the 2004 OCAP are

sufficient to justify a “no jeopardy” opinion despite the likely impacts

to the affected species of the changed and intensified operations. 

Finally, the new action and NRDC v. Norton raise similar questions

regarding the appropriate remedy for the federal defendants’ failure to

prepare adequate biological opinions; therefore the potential exists for

conflicting remedies in the event the cases are not assigned to the same

judge.

Motion to Relate at 4-5.

Before Judge Wilken ruled on the Motion to Relate, Defendant-Intervenors in NRDC v.

Norton brought a motion to transfer that action to the Eastern District of California on the basis that

it was similar to an action pending in the Eastern District, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth.

Case 3:05-cv-03232-JCS Document 111 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 support of this point, Plaintiffs request judicial notice of statements by both Judge Wilken,

of this district, and Judge Wanger, of the Eastern District, that the Eastern District of California is one

of the busiest districts in the country. See Plaintiffs’ Request that the Court Take Judicial Notice of

Adjudicative Facts in Connection with Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Federal Defendants’ Motion to Transfer

Venue (“First Request for Judicial Notice”) (requesting Court take judicial notice of transcript of

November 18, 2005, proceeding before Judge Wilken in which Judge Wilken stated that “the Eastern

District of California has a huge caseload, much greater than ours”); Plaintiffs’ Second Request that the

Court Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts in Connection with Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Federal

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (“Second Request for Judicial Notice”) (requesting Court take

judicial notice of transcript in proceeding before Judge Wanger in unrelated action in which Judge

Wanger stated that “this is the busiest court in the United States . . . We have over 1,150 cases per judge

in this court”). The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of these transcripts pursuant to

Fed. R. Evid. 201(d), which allows courts to take judicial notice of facts not reasonably subject to

dispute.

2

 The parties do not dispute that the action could have been brought in the Eastern District of

California.

3

and Westlands Water Dist. v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, et al., Case No. CIV F-02-6461

OWW/DLB (hereinafter, “San Luis”). Judge Wilken denied the motion to relate and granted the

motion to transfer NRDC v. Norton to the Eastern District.

Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors (collectively, the “Moving Parties”) now seek transfer

of this action to the Eastern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the basis that such a transfer

is in the interest of justice because of the substantial similarities between this action and NRDC v.

Norton and the greater judicial efficiency that will result from resolving these cases in the same

court. Plaintiffs counter that a transfer should not be granted because their choice of forum should

be given deference and because a transfer will give rise to significant inconvenience to many of the

key individuals of the Plaintiff organizations. Plaintiffs reject the assertion that the similarities

between this action and NRDC v. Norton support transfer, pointing out that the actions involve two

different biological opinions issued by two different agencies. They also assert that transfer is not in

the interest of justice because it would result in delay, given the greater court congestion in the

Eastern District.1

III. ANALYSIS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a case may be transferred “for the convenience of the

parties of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice” to “any other district or division where

the action might have been brought.”2 In Continental Grain Co. v. Barge F.B.L. - 585, the Supreme

Case 3:05-cv-03232-JCS Document 111 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Court held that “[t]o permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are

simultaneously pending in different district courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and

money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent.” 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960). In reliance on Continental

Grain, courts have held that “the pendency of a similar action in the transferee court is a universally

recognized reason for granting a change of venue.” Weltmann v. Fletcher, 431 F. Supp. 448, 451

(N.D. Ohio 1976) (citing Continental Grain, 364 U.S. at 26). For example, Judge Armstrong, of this

court, has explained that “the pendency of related actions in the proposed transferee forum is a

highly persuasive factor” in determining whether a transfer is in the interest of justice. Wiley v.

Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 2005 WL 1910934 (N.D. Cal.) at *3. Further, “[t]he ‘interests of justice’

consideration is the most important factor a court must consider, and may be decisive in a transfer

motion even when all other factors point the other way.” Id. (quoting London and Hull Maritime

Ins. Co. v. Eagle Pacific Ins. Co., 1996 WL 479013, * 3 (N.D. Cal. 1996)). 

Other factors considered by courts in determining whether a case should be transferred under

§ 1404(a) are: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the

state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the

respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action

in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8)

the ease of access to sources of proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 .3d 495, 498-499 (9th

Cir. 2000). However, in environmental cases involving challenges to an administrative record,

many of these factors are not applicable, in part because there is no evidentiary hearing or

presentation of witnesses. See Nez Perce Tribe v. Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. Fisheries,

2004 WL 1179333 at * 2 (D. Or. May 27, 2004). In these cases, one of the most important

considerations often is the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. Id. A

party seeking transfer must make “a strong showing . . . to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of

forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

Based on consideration of the factors listed above, the Court concludes that transfer is

warranted. It is indisputable – and indeed, undisputed by the parties – that there is significant

Case 3:05-cv-03232-JCS Document 111 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

overlap between the two cases such that trying them together will result in greater judicial

efficiency. Further, the Court concludes that there is a danger of inconsistent outcomes if the cases

are handled by different courts. The Court is particularly troubled by the possibility that if this case

and NRDC v. Norton are handled by different courts, the potential remedies fashioned by the two

courts are likely to be piecemeal. Given that the 2004 OCAP is intended to be a unified plan, it is in

the interest of justice that any relief that may be granted in one or both cases should be fashioned by

a single judge who has the ability to appreciate its broad implications. Judge Wilken has found good

cause to transfer NRDC v. Norton to the Eastern District. This case should be heard in the same

court.

The Court does not find that the potential inconvenience to Plaintiffs of transferring the case

to the Eastern District is significant enough to outweigh the concerns discussed above. As Judge

Wilken has noted, most of the plaintiffs are regional, state-wide or national organizations. See Order

Granting Motion to Transfer (Case No. C-05-0690 CW), filed 9/6/05. Many litigate in the Eastern

District frequently. Nor does the possibility that there will be some delay in resolution of the case

(Plaintiffs assert that cases in the Eastern District take on average a month longer to resolve than

cases in this district, and the Court assumes this statistic to be accurate) persuade the Court the case

should not be transferred. While this Court is reluctant to contribute to the already heavy case load

of the Eastern District, it concludes that this is just the sort of case that § 1404(a) was designed to

address. The “interest of justice” strongly outweighs any inconvenience to Plaintiffs that will result

from transferring the case. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to transfer

the file in this case to the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2006

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-03232-JCS Document 111 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 5