Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05052/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Friends of the River
Plaintiff
Todd T. Semonite
Defendant
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-05052-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF 

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS AND TRANSFERRING FOR 

IMPROPER VENUE

Re: Dkt. No. 12 

Plaintiff Friends of the River brings the instant complaint alleging claims under the 

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants Army Corps of Engineers 

and Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite (collectively “the Corps”) conducted an inadequate 

search for, and improperly withheld, records plaintiff is seeking pursuant to four separate FOIA 

requests made between April and June 2016 (“FOIAs 1-4”). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and 

injunctive relief to compel the Corps to perform reasonable searches, promptly produce 

improperly withheld records, and cease its patterns and practices that violate FOIA. Defendants 

have filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue, and 

include therein a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) with respect to 

the claims against individual defendant Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite. 

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Transfer for Improper 

Venue.1 The case shall be transferred to the District of Columbia. The request to dismiss is 

DENIED. In light of this ruling, the Court does not address defendants’ motion to dismiss claims 

against individual defendant Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite. 

 1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

finds that this motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

Case 4:16-cv-05052-YGR Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 Californi

a

STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THE MOTION 

Failure to file in a proper venue may be raised by motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(3), a court need not accept the pleadings as true and may consider facts outside of the 

pleadings. See Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004); Argueta 

v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir.1996). Once the defendant has challenged the 

propriety of venue in the district, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that venue is proper. 

Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). Facts 

supporting venue may be shown by declaration, affidavit, or other evidence. Ziegler Chemical and 

Mineral Corp. v. Standard Oil Company, 32 F.R.D. 241, 243 (N.D. Cal. 1962). Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a), if the court determines that venue is improper, the court must either dismiss the 

action or, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer the case to a district or division in which it could 

have been brought. Whether to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively to transfer venue to a 

proper court, is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. See King v. Russell, 963 

F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Improper Venue 

This case arises out of four FOIA requests plaintiff submitted to the Corps’ office in 

Sacramento, seeking documents related to the Corps’ operation and maintenance of two dams on 

the Yuba River that adversely impact spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and green 

sturgeon, which are listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. (Dkt. No. 1 at 

¶ 1.) Plaintiff is also currently litigating an Endangered Species Act case against the Corps, and 

other defendants, related to the Corps’ operation and maintenance of the two Yuba River dams in 

the Eastern District of California in Friends of the River v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et 

al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00818-JAM-EFB.

To determine whether venue is proper, courts look to the venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1391 unless the statute in question has a special venue provision. See Johnson v. Payless Drug 

Stores Northwest, Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 587 (9th Cir. 1991) (specific venue provision in statute 

Case 4:16-cv-05052-YGR Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

applicable to particular case takes precedence over general venue rule). Here, plaintiff brings 

claims under FOIA, which has its own venue provision. FOIA provides for venue in either: (1) the 

judicial district where the plaintiff resides or has her principal place of business, (2) the judicial 

district where the agency records are situated, or (3) the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(4)(B). 

With respect to venue, plaintiff’s complaint alleges: 

Venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is 

proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because many of the records sought by the 

Plaintiff are likely situated in the Corps’ South Pacific Division and San Francisco 

District offices located at 1455 Market St., San Francisco, California. There is no 

single United States District where all the records sought by the Plaintiff are likely 

situated, as various Corps’ Division and District offices located throughout the 

United States, (including California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Maine, 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

and Delaware) as well as Corps headquarters in Washington D.C. may likely have 

responsive records. Of all the locations where venue would lie under 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(4)(B), venue is most appropriate in the Northern District of California 

because Plaintiff’s counsel is located in San Francisco and litigating the action in 

San Francisco will avoid the expense of having Plaintiff’s counsel travel to a 

distant court and thus reduce the burdens and costs of litigation to Plaintiff, which 

is a nonprofit public interest organization with limited means. 

(Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 4.) 

In support of its argument that responsive records are located in this District, plaintiff 

presents evidence that documents responsive to a past search in another FOIA request concerning 

topics similar to those in two of the four FOIA requests at issue in this case (FOIAs 1 and 3) 

included records located in this District. (See Dkt. No. 14 at 6-7.) Plaintiff also argues that venue 

is proper in this District for the other two FOIA requests at issue (FOIAs 2 and 4) because FOIA 2 

concerns biological opinions issued to the Corps for projects in the entire state of California, 

which necessarily includes this District, and because at least some of the facilities listed in FOIA 4 

fall within this District.2

 (See id. at 7-8.) Plaintiff notes that, at a minimum, the Corps’ San 

Francisco offices would have received copies of a legal memorandum, which it contends is 

 2

 In its reply brief, defendants note that just 2 of the 302 facilities at issue in FOIA 3 fall 

within this District. (Dkt. No. 16 at 3.) 

Case 4:16-cv-05052-YGR Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 Californi

a

responsive to FOIA 4, issued by Corps Headquarters to all Corps Division and District offices 

across the country. (See id at 7.) 

Little case law exists on this issue of whether the mere possibility that requested 

documents may be located in a district is sufficient to show proper venue. That which does 

suggests that venue is not proper. See, e.g., Rosiere v. Hawaii, 2016 WL 3408848, at *2 (D. 

Hawaii June 1, 2016) (where responsive FOIA documents located in multiple districts, venue is 

appropriate where plaintiff resides, in Washington, DC, or in separate actions in each of the 

districts where the documents at issue were located); O’Neill v. United States, 2007 WL 983143, 

at *7 (E.D. Wisc. March 26, 2007) (finding that, unless waived as a defense, venue for three FOIA 

documents located in Chicago would not be proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, even 

though the fourth requested document was located in the Eastern District of Wisconsin). Plaintiff 

provides no authority to the contrary. 

Here, it is undisputed that a significant portion of the responsive documents are actually 

located in another district. Moreover, defendant has also provided evidence specifically stating 

that the responsive documents are, in fact, entirely located in that other district (as to FOIAs 1 and 

3) or that “there is no reasonable expectation that relevant agency records would be maintained” 

by the Corps offices located in this District (as to FOIAs 2 and 4). (See Dkt. No. 12-1 at ¶¶ 7-8.) 

Plaintiff's claim that venue would be proper in every federal judicial district where a Corps’ office 

is located because all offices allegedly received the same legal memorandum that it contends is 

responsive to one of its FOIA requests is not supported with any legal authority. Nor does the 

plain language of the FOIA venue statute support such an interpretation. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that venue in this case is not proper in the Northern District of 

California. 

II. Dismissal versus Transfer 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if a case is filed in the wrong venue, the court “shall dismiss, 

or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could 

have been brought.” A court should examine a plaintiff’s claim to determine whether the interest 

of justice requires transfer instead of dismissal. See, e.g., King, 963 F.2d at 1304-05. “Normally 

Case 4:16-cv-05052-YGR Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 Californi

a

transfer will be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be 

brought elsewhere is time-consuming and justice-defeating.” Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 

1264 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that dismissal would prejudice its case because it would cause further delay 

in resolving FOIA requests that are already months overdue. (Dkt. No. 14 at 11-12.) In addition, 

because Friends of the River is a nonprofit organization with a limited budget, plaintiff argues that 

re-filing will require it to pay additional fees and costs that would be a burden that could be 

avoided if the case was transferred rather than dismissed. (Id. at 12.) Finally, plaintiff states that it 

had a good faith and reasonable belief that venue was proper in the Northern District. (Id.) 

The Court is persuaded by plaintiff’s arguments and finds that that the interest of justice 

dictates that this case be transferred rather than dismissed. Plaintiff has specifically requested that 

the case be transferred to the District of Columbia, which Congress has expressly established as a 

place of proper venue for all FOIA cases, regardless of where the records at issue are located. In re 

Scott, 709 F.2d 717, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Defendant also agreed that, if the Court granted a 

transfer, the District of Columbia would be an appropriate forum. (See Dkt. No. 16 at 6.) Thus, the 

Court will transfer the case to the District of Columbia. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the Court finds plaintiff has not alleged or offered facts to show that venue 

is proper in the Northern District of California. However, the interest of justice requires that the 

case be transferred rather than dismissed. Accordingly, the Motion to Transfer Venue is 

GRANTED. The clerk of court shall transfer this case to the District of Columbia. Given the lack 

of jurisdiction, the Court declines to rule on the motion to dismiss. 

This order terminates Docket No. 12. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 22, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-05052-YGR Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 5