1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REKHA GORREPATI, et al. , Plaintiff s v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. , Defendant s Civil Action No. 21

- 0062 ( CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ( February 25 , 20 21 ) Rehka Gorrepati and her husband Vijaya Ram Prasad Mandepudi (collectively,

“ Plaintiffs ”) are foreign nationals residing in De Pere, Wisconsin

. See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 3.
Mr. Mandepudi is presently employed at Humana Inc., as a temporary worker with H

- 1B immigration status

. See id. ¶¶ 3

– 4. Ms. Gorrepati is employed as a Senior Quality Analyst with a technology company in Wisconsin called Indus Info Systems , but her employment authorization expired on December 31, 2020. See id. ¶ 6. Before the expiration of her employ ment authorization , Ms. Gorrepati submitted a Form I

- 765 Application for Employment Authorization
to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service s (“ USC IS ”) on July 21, 2020 , requesting
status as an “ H

- 4 spouse ” of an H1

- B worker. See id. ¶ 8

. Ms. Gorrepati ’ s application currently remains pending, and, as of December 31, 2020, Indus Info Systems placed Ms. Gorrepati on a leave of absence. See id. ¶ 10. On January 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this civil action seeking “ to compel Defendant USCIS to adjudicate [Ms. Gorrep ati ’ s ] Form I

- 765 EAD application and send her Form I

- 766 EAD card to her as soon as possible, so that she can continue working for her
emp loyer. ” Id. ¶ 12.2 On February 5, 2021, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs ’ complaint with a motion to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See Defs. ’ Mot., ECF No. 6, at 1. In their motion, Defendants also requested an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs ’ complaint. See id. Plaintiffs have consented to both requests. See id. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Defendants ’ motion to transfer this a ction and for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs ’ complaint. I. Transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) , this Court “ may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought , ” “ [ f] or the convenience of parties and witnesses ” and “ in the interest of justice. ” “ The Court has ‘ broad discretion ’ to transfer a case under section 1404 , ” Rossville Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Barr , 453 F. Supp. 3d 380, 385 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting In re S cott , 709 F.2d 717, 719 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ) , but must exercise this discretion on the basis of an “ individualized, case

- by

- case ” analysis of whether transfer is appropriate , Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. , 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). “ Determining whether transfer is appropriate pursuant to section 1404(a) calls for a two

- part inquiry. ” Bourdon v. United States Dep ’ t of Homeland Sec. , 235 F. Supp. 3d 298, 304 (D.D.C. 2017). “ First, the Court must ask whether the transferee forum is one where the a ction ‘ might have been brought ’ originally. ” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).

“ Second, the Court must consider whether private and public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer. ” Id. “ The party moving to transfer venue bears the burden of establi shing that convenience and the interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer. ” Id. at 303. Here, Defendants move to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As an initial matter, the Court has no trouble concluding that Plaintiffs “ migh t have brought ” this action within that judicial district. Bourdo n , 235 F. Supp. 3 d at 304 ( quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). V enue3 would be proper in this case “ in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred

. . . or (C) the plaintiff resides

. ” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) (emphasis added)

. Plaintiffs both reside in De Pere, Wisconsin , which is located within the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 3. Accordingly, Plaintiffs could have originally filed the present action with that judicial district. Next, the Court must consider whether the private and public interests weigh in favor of a transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin

. “ P r ivate interest considerations include: (1) the plaintiffs ’ choice of forum ” ; “ (2) the defendants ’ choice of forum; (3) whether th e claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses of the plaintiff and defendant ” ; and “ (6) the ease of access to sources of proof. ” Rossville Convenience & Gas,
Inc. , 453 F. Supp. 3d at 385

– 86. Public inte rest considerations include: “(1) the transferee ’ s familiarity with the governing laws; (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. ” Id

. at 386; see also Bourdon , 235 F. Supp. 3d at 308. Within this framework , the Court first finds that the “ private interest considerations ” weigh in favor of transfer. To begin , Plaintiffs have consent ed to Defendants ’ request for a transfer to the
Easter n District of Wisconsin. See Defs. ’ Mot., ECF No. 6, at 1. As such, the private “ choice of forum ” considerations weigh in favor of th at transferee district , as all parties have now consented to that judicial forum

. N ext , the private interest analysis considers the derivation of Plaintiffs ’ claim. In this case, Plaintiffs ’ claim arguably derives from actions carried out by Plaintiff s in Wisconsin, see Compl. , ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3

– 6, 15 , the actions of USCIS employees processing

em ployment authorization applications at the USCIS service center in Texa s , see id. ¶ 25(d); Defs. ’ Mot. ECF No. 6, at 1 , and alleged policy decisions made “ within the offices of the DHS and4 USCIS, which are headquartered in the District of Columbia, ” id. ¶ 25(e). Given th ese various predicates , the derivation Plaintiffs ’ claim is not clearly determinative. The Court does note , however, that a generalized reference to agency policymaking executed within the District of Columbia does not supply a strong conn ection to this Court for the purposes of venue. See Al

– Ahmed v. Chertoff , 564 F. Supp. 2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2008)

. Finally, t he remaining private interest factors consider convenience for the parties and for potential witnesses, as well as the procurement of potential evidence

. See Rossville Convenience & Gas, Inc. , 453 F. Supp. 3d at 385

– 86. These factors weigh in favor of transfer. As mentioned above , Plaintiffs reside in the transferee judicial district and, consequently, a transfer to tha t judicial district will render this case more convenient for them

. Moreover , Defendant s have requested the transfer in question , and the Court, therefore, presumes that the transferee forum will present sufficient conveniences to Defendants as well. Fin ally, the Court observes that Plaintiffs ’ employers are both located within the transferee district. See Compl. , ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 4

– 5

. Given that this case involves issues of employment authorization, see id. ¶¶ 1

– 21, p roximity to Plaintiffs ’ employers will enhance the convenience of procuring potential witnesses and documentary evidence germane to Plaintiffs ’ claims

. In sum, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that the balance of private interest s weigh s in favor of a transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court also finds that the public interests ultimately weigh in favor of transfer. To start, the first two public interest factors , which concern the congestion of the respective courts ’ dockets and their familiarity with the legal issues presente d, provide little guidance

. Rossville Convenience & Gas, Inc. , 453 F. Supp. 3d at 386. Plaintiffs ’ complaint raises questions under federal law, with which both this Court and courts in the Eastern District of Wisconsin “ are equally familiar. ”5 Bourdon , 235 F. Supp. 3d at 309. Moreover, as Defendants explain, both the Eastern District of Wi sconsin and this judicial district confront congested dockets. See Defs. ’ Mot., ECF No. 6, at 4. Accordingly, these two public interest factors remain neutral. The final public interest factor, however, emphasizes the value of deciding local controversi es “ at home, ” and this factor does weigh in favor of transfer. Bourdon , 235 F. Supp. 3d at 308. The outcome of this case bears directly on Plaintiffs ’ ability to live and to work within the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, consequently, there is value in having Plaintiffs ’ case adjudicated within that judicial district. See,
e.g. , Pres. Soc. of Charleston v. U.S. Army Corps o f Eng ’ rs , 893 F. Supp. 2d 49, 58 (D.D.C. 2012). For these reasons, the balance of the public interest factors also weighs in fav or of a transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In sum, the Court finds that both the private and public interests weigh in favor of a transfer of this action to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Accordingly, the Court concludes that such a
trans fer is “ in the interests of justice ” and will GRANT Defendants ’ motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

.

II. Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint Defendants have also moved for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs ’ complaint.
See Defs. ’ Mot., ECF No. 6, at 5. In their motion, Defendants explain that upon a transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a new Assistant United States Attorney will be assigned to this case, and that new attorne y will need “ sufficient time to review the case file, discuss this matter with the relevant agencies, and formulate an appropriate response to Plaintiffs ’ complaint. ” Id. Plaintiffs have consented to this request. See id. at 1. Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court will GRANT Defendants ’ request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff s ’ complaint. See
F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 6(b).6 **** For the reasons set forth i n this Memorandum Opinion, the Court will GRANT Defendants ’ [6] Consent Motion to Transfer and Extend

. An appropriate Ord er accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated : February 25 , 2021 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR

- KOTELLY United States District Judge