Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02646/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02646-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

OAKLAND DIVISION

SIERRA FOREST LEGACY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BERNARD WEINGARDT, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 07-2646 SBA

ORDER

Defendants Bernard Weingardt (Regional Forester, Region 5, United States Forest Service),

Edward Cole (Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest, U.S. Forest Service), Abigail R. Kimbell (Chief

of the U.S. Forest Service), and the United States Forest Service, have filed a motion to transfer venue

to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California [Docket No. 11]. After reading

and considering the arguments presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for

resolution without a hearing. See FED.R.CIV. P. 78. For the reasons that follow, the motion to transfer

venue is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sierra Forest Legacy, Sierra Club, Earth Island Institute, and California Native Plant

Society are alleging that the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to authorize the Kings River Project in the

Sierra National Forest violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management

Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. See Docket No. 1 (Compl.). The Kings River Project aims

to restore historical pre-1850 forest conditions across a portion of the Sierra National Forest located in

Fresno County, which is within the Eastern District. See Docket No. 11, Exs. 1, 2. The Project seeks

to preserve critical wildlife habitat, increase the number of large trees, reduce tree density, and protect

communities from wildfire. Id. The plaintiffs allege that the Project was approved without full

consideration of its wildfire risk and environmental impact on endangered species, and that the

defendants failed to respond to scientific information and public comments regarding the Project’s

Case 4:07-cv-02646-SBA Document 28 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 6
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

impact, and also failed to ensure the viability and distribution of certain endangered species. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) declares that “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in

the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where

it might have been brought.” A determination of whether an action should be transferred is a two-step

analysis. First, the court must determine whether the action “might have been brought” in the potential

transferee court. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758

F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). If so, then the court makes an “individualized, case-by-case

determination of convenience and fairness,” weighing (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the

convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d

495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). In weighing these factors, the court may take into account:

“(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.”

GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d at 498-99. The burden is on the moving party to show that transfer

is appropriate. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979);

Carolinas Cas. Co. v. Data Broadcasting Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 

ANALYSIS

1. Propriety of Venue in the Eastern District

Where this action “might have been brought” is determined by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), which states

that in civil actions against United States agencies, venue is proper in any 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 a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) the

Case 4:07-cv-02646-SBA Document 28 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 6
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

plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. There is no dispute between the parties that

this action might have been brought in the Eastern District of California. Venue lies in the Eastern

District because the Kings River Project, all of the property that is the subject of this action, is situated

within that district. Additionally, the Ranger District where the Kings River Project was prepared, and

the relevant Regional Office of the U.S. Forest Service are within the district. Therefore, the Eastern

District is an appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

2. Weighing of Factors

A. The Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

Having successfully cleared the initial hurdle of demonstrating an alternative forum, the Court

weighs the various factors for transfer. In the usual case, unless the balance of the section 1404(a)

factors weigh heavily in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be

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

Securities Investor Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985). However, “[i]f 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 & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968); see also Lou

v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (same).

The Northern District of California has no particular interest in the subject matter of this action.

The Kings River Project is in the Eastern District and the impact of the project, positive or otherwise,

will be felt by the citizens and the environment within that district, and at most, only indirectly in the

Northern District of California. The only interest cited by the plaintiffs is that “there is a strong public

interest in California and nationwide regarding the federal government’s management of our national

forest lands.” Docket No. 17, at 5. This generalized interest is presumably, however, equally existent

in the Eastern District. Moreover, as noted by the court in Center for Biological Diversity & Pac. Env’t

v. Kempthorne, 2007 WL 2023515, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2007), “widespread concern does not by itself

resolve the question of which of the proposed federal forums is the most appropriate.”

Case 4:07-cv-02646-SBA Document 28 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Because the operative facts relate to the federal management of land in the Eastern District of

California, and because the Northern District has no particular interest in the subject matter of this

action, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to only minimum consideration.

This leaves the statutory factors of the convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, and the

interest of justice. 

B. Convenience of the Parties

Each of the plaintiffs maintains an office in the Eastern District of California. Many, or all, of

the plaintiffs are frequent litigants in the Eastern District of California. Thus, there is little suggestion

that the plaintiffs would be particularly inconvenienced by a transfer to that district, nor have the

plaintiffs highlighted any particular inconvenience to them in having this matter heard there.

C. Convenience of the Witnesses

The convenience of the witnesses is not a factor in this action. Environmental cases such as this

one are typically resolved by the district court examining the administrative record in deciding crossmotions for summary judgment. See Center for Biological Diversity & Pac. Env’t, 2007 WL 2023515,

at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Thus, “in environmental cases involving challenges to an administrative record,

many of these factors [such as convenience of the witnesses] are not applicable, in part because there

is no evidentiary hearing or presentation of witnesses.” Pacific Coast Fed’n v. Gutierrez, 2006 WL

194507, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Nez Perce Tribe v. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.

Fisheries, 2004 WL 1179333, at *2 (D. Or. 2004). 

D. The Interest of Justice

The prime remaining factor in determining whether transfer should be granted is the interest of

justice. “[I]n most environmental cases, the issue of which federal district should adjudicate the issues

is determined by weighing a plaintiff’s choice of forum against the competing interest in ‘having

localized controversies decided at home.’” Kempthorne, 2007 WL 2023515, at *5 (quoting Piper

Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). Indeed, many district courts deciding environmental

actions have found transfer to be appropriate largely on the basis of the local interest factor alone.

Kempthorne, 2007 WL 2023515, at *6 (transferring action to the District of Alaska because the case

Case 4:07-cv-02646-SBA Document 28 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 6
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

concerned the environmental impact of oil and gas industry activities off the coast of Northern Alaska);

Nez Perce Tribe, 2004 WL 1179333, at *3 (transfer to Idaho was appropriate where Idaho, its citizens,

and residents of the Nez Perce reservation had a strong interest in resolving land management issues

close to home); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 315 F. Supp. 2d 82, 88 (D.D.C. 2004)

(applying the local interest factor in finding that transfer to Utah was appropriate for a case involving

an agency decision on federal lands in Utah and noting that “[l]and is a localized interest because its

management directly touches local citizens”). Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

C-04-1099, at 6-7 JCS (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2004) (granting transfer of venue from this district to the

Eastern District because of its local interest in the controversy of logging timber in the Klamath National

Forest);Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13, 19 (D.D.C. 1996) (court transferred

to Colorado case involving “water rights, environmental regulation, and local wildlife” on National

Forest land in Colorado); see also 15 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,

§ 3854 (3d ed. 2007) (noting that, especially in environmental cases, “[a]n additional reason for

litigating in the forum that encompasses the locus of operative facts is the local interest in having local

controversies resolved at home . . . .”). 

Because the Kings River Project involves land entirely within the Eastern District, and one of

its aims is reducing wildfire risk to communities in the district, the Eastern District has a strong local

interest in the resolution of this controversy. Therefore, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer

to that district. 

E. Other Factors

The plaintiffs argue that transfer to the Eastern District will impair judicial efficiency. The

plaintiffs base this statement on federal court management statistics showing the median time for

resolutions of civil suits brought in the Eastern District is more than two and a half months longer than

that in the Northern District. However, docket congestion is a factor of little weight, and plays a role

only when the backlogs between the two courts are significantly disproportionate. See, e.g., Gintz v.

Jack in the Box, Inc., 2007 WL 397306, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (finding that relative court congestion

only plays a role if the time to trial is radically longer in the court initially selected by the plaintiff);

Case 4:07-cv-02646-SBA Document 28 Filed 10/17/07 Page 5 of 6
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

Dorfman v. Jackson, 2005 WL 2176900, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (“The factor of relative docket

congestion . . . is not an important one”). The two and a half month difference is not significantly

disproportionate. 

The significance of the local interest factor, particularly in environmental actions such as this

case, heavily outweighs the plaintiffs’ choice of forum given this district’s limited interest in the Kings

River Project. This action concerns the Sierra National Forest, which is completely within the Eastern

District. The residents who will be affected by the Kings River Project, whether positively or

negatively, live in the Eastern District. Therefore, the Eastern District is a more appropriate venue for

this action.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California [Docket No. 11]. This action is hereby transferred

to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of Court is directed

to transfer the file to that district accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 17, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02646-SBA Document 28 Filed 10/17/07 Page 6 of 6