UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA NATI ONAL

ASSOCI ATI ON OF : HO ME B UI L DE RS e t al

. , : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 09-0548 (RMU) : v. : Re Docume nt No.: 5 : UNI TED STATES ENVI RONMENTAL : PROTECTI ON AGENCY e t al

. , : : De fe nd ants . :

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION D ENY I N G TH E D EF END A N TS ’ M OT I ON T O T RANS F E R V E NUE

I. IN TR OD UC TIO N This matter come s befor e the c ourt on the motion to transfer venue f iled by the defe ndants, the Environmenta l Protection Ag ency (“EPA” ) and the Army

Corps of Eng ineer s (“Corps” ). The pla intiffs, trade a ssociations repr esentingbusinesses in the housing and construction fie lds, seek judicial re view under the Administrative Proce dure A ct (“ APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. , o f t he de fe nd ants ’ d e signatio n o f t wo re a c he s o f t

he Santa Cr uz Ri ve r i n Arizona as “tr aditional navig able waters” unde r the Clean Water Act (“ CW A”) , 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. The de fenda nts move to transfer

venue to the D istrict of Arizona. Afte r we ighing the c on sid e ra

tio ns of c onve nie nc e and

the int e re sts of

jus tic e , th e c ourt

de nie s th e de fe nd ants ’ motion.

II. F ACTUAL & P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On Marc h 23, 2009, the plaintiffs commenc ed this action, cha lleng ing the decision of theThe EP A is task ed w ith adm inisteringthe CWA
. See 33 U. S.C . § 12 51(d). O ther p rov isions of 1 the C WA g iv e the Corp s authority to enforce prov isions of the C WA, such as issu ingperm its for the “d ischarg e of dredg ed o r fill m aterial into the nav ig able w aters at specified dispos al sites. ” Id. § 1 34 4( a)
. The S an taC ru z R iv er

o ri g in at es in

A ri z on a, f

lo w s so uth in to Me xi co and th en f lo w s no rth ag ai n 2 into A riz ona, w here it m erg es w ith the Gila Riv er. See Defs. ’ Mot. at 4. 2 defe ndants to classify

two rea ches of

the Santa Cruz River as “tra ditional naviga ble wate rs,” a 1 2 term of a rt under the CW A. Compl. ¶ 2. These r eac hes ar e located in Arizona. Id. ¶ 1. The EPA’s de cision to designate these r eac hes as tra ditional naviga ble wate rs was
c omm un ic ate d in

a le tte r wri tte n b y

the EPA ’s As sis tant A dmi nis tr ator fo r Wate r, B e nja

min Grumbles, on De cembe r 3, 2008. Id. ¶ 3, Ex. 1. The letter wa s signe d at the EPA’s he adquar ters in the District of Columbia. Defs.’ Mot. at 9. In this letter, Grumbles af firmed a n ear lier deter mination made by

the Corps’ L os Ang eles District that the r eac hes qualified a s traditional navig able wa

ters. Compl. ¶ 4. In their first cla im for re lief, the plaintiffs a lleg e that the Corps a nd the EPA violated the APA’s proc edura l require ments in making this deter mination. Id. ¶

¶ 5 8
- 6 6
. M o r e s p e c i f

i c a l l y, the plaintiffs cla im that the ag encie s failed to issue a notice of propose d rulemakingand g ive interested pa

rties an oppor

tunity to comment on the proposed r egulations, in viol ation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b)-(c ) and 706( 2)(D)
. Id. The plaintiffs’ second c laim conce rns the substance of the deter minations. Id. ¶¶ 67- 79. The plaintiffs c ontend that the dete rminations by the ag encie s in question were arbitra

ry and ca pricious, wer e unsupported by sufficie nt evidence and excee ded the ag encie s’ statutory

authority
. Id. On April 10, 2009, the de fenda nts filed a motion to transfer this case to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Se e ge ne ra lly Def s.’ Mot. The cour

t now turns to the3

a pp lic a ble le g a l st and ard

and the pa rt ie s’ argume nts .

III . A NA LY SIS A. Le ga l St anda r d forVe nue unde r 28 U. S.C . § 13 91 (e ) a nd

Transf er P ursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1404( a) When fede ral jurisdiction is not premised solely on diversity

and a de fenda

nt is an office r,
e mpl oye e , o r a g e nc y

of the Un ite d St ate s, ve nu e is p ro pe r i n: any judicial district in which (1) a defe ndant i n t h e action re sides, (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions g iving r ise to the claim occ urre d, or a substantial pa rt of proper ty that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) the plaintiff re sides if no rea l property

is involved in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). I f, upon objec tion of a par ty , the cour

t concludes that venue is improper , it may transfe r the ca se pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1406. In an ac tion where venue is prope r, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) nonetheless a

uthorizes a court to transf er a civil action to any

other district whe re it could have be e n b ro ug ht “ fo r t

he c onve nie nc e of

pa rt ie s a nd wi tne sse s, in t

he int e re st o f j us tic e .” 28 U. S.C. § 1404(a) . Section 1404(a) vests “discre tion in the dist rict cour t to adjudicate motions to transfer
acc ordingto an ‘individualized, case- by -ca se consider ation of conve nience and fa irness.’” Ste war t O rg ., In c . v . R ic oh Cor p . , 4 8 7 U. S
. 2 2 , 2 9 (1 9 8 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Van Dusen v . Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). Under this statute, the movingparty bear s the burden of

establishing that transfe r is proper
. Tro ut U nli mi te d v . D e

p’ t of Ag ric ., 944 F. Supp. 13, 16 (D.D .C. 1996). Acc ording ly , the def

endants must make two showing s to justi fy transfe r. F irst, the defe ndants must establish that the plaintiffs orig inally could have broug ht the action in the proposed tra

nsfer ee district. Van Dusen , 3 76 U. S. at 62 2. Se c on d, the de fe nd ants mus tVenue is a pp ro pr ia te w he re “ a su

bs tant ia l p art o f pr op erty th at is th e su bjec t o f th e ac ti on

is 3 s i tu a t e d
. ” 28 U. S
. C
. § 1 3 9 1 ( e )
. As n o t e d i nPa r tI I supra , th e reac hes of the Santa C ruzR iv er at issue are loc ated e xclusiv ely in Ariz ona. See Com

pl. ¶ 1. 4 demonstrate that considerations of convenienc e and the interest of justice w eig h in favor of transfe r to that district. Trout Unli mited , 944 F. Supp. at 16. As to the sec ond showing , the statute ca lls on the court to weig h a number of ca se-spe cific pr ivate- a nd public-intere st factor s. Stewart Org. , 4 87 U. S. at 29 . T he pr ivate -i nte re st c on sid e ra tio ns inc lud e : ( 1) the pla int if fs ’ choice of for

um, unless the balanc e of c onvenienc e is strong ly in favor of

the def endants; (2) the defe ndants’ choic e of f

orum; (3) whe ther the c laim arose e lsewher e; (4) the convenie nce of the parties; (5) the conve nience of the witnesse s; and (6) the ease of ac cess to sourc es of pr oof. Trout Unli mited , 9 4 4 F. S u p p . at1 6 (c i t i n g Jumara v . State Farm Ins. Co. , 55 F.3d 873, 879 ( 3d Cir . 1 99 5) ; Heller Fin., Inc . v. Rive rdale Auto Parts, Inc ., 71 3 F . Su pp . 1 12 5, 11 29 (N .D . I ll. 1989); 15 F ED . P R AC . & P R OC . § 3848). The public- interest conside rations include: (1) the transfe ree ’s familiarity

with the g overninglaws; (2) the relative cong estion of the ca lendar s of the potential transf

ere e and tr ansfe ror c ourts; and (3) the local intere st in deciding local controve rsies at home. Id
.

B. Th e CourtDenies the De fend ants’ Motion for Transf er As noted above , to justi fy a tra nsfer of venue , the def

endants must, as a thre shold matter, demonstrate that the plaintiffs could have orig inally broug ht the case in the proposed tra nsfer ee district. Van Dusen , 376 U.S. at 622. The plaintiffs c oncede that venue w ould have be en appropr iate in the District of Arizona had the c ase or igina lly been br oug ht there. SeePls.’ 3 Op p ’n at1 2
. Ne x t , th e d ef en d an t s mu s ts h o w t h atth e p ri v at e- an d p u b l i c- i n t er es tfa ct o rs we i gh in favor of

transfe r. Van Dusen , 3 76 U. S. at 62 2; Trout Unli mited , 944 F. Supp. at 16. F ourThe parties conce de th at m ost o f the priv ate- and pu blic- interest fa ctors are ne utral in this ca se; 4 that is, they

do no t w eig h stro ng ly

in fav or o f either g rantingor deny ingthe m otion to tran sfer. F or e xam pl e, th e de fe nd an ts d o no t c on te nd th at v enue in th e D is tr ic t o f A ri z on a w ou ld b e m or e conv enient for the parties than it wo uld b e in this d istrict. Defs. ’ Mot. at 12 ; Pls. ’ O pp’n at 9. Lik ewise , th e parties con cede that b ecause case s rev iewed un der th e A PAare g enerally lim ited to rev iew of the adm inistrativ e reco rd, the co nv enience of witnes ses an d ac cess to sources o f proof do not c arry

sig nificant weig ht. D efs.’ Mot. at 12; Pls.’ Opp ’n at 9- 10. In ad dition, the parties a g ree that boththis court and the D istrict of Ariz ona are fam iliar w ith the federal laws at issue in this case. D efs.’ Mot. at 10; Pls.’ Opp ’n at 11. 5 fa c tor s are pa

rt ic ula rl y re le va nt t o th is c a se and

are c on te ste d b y

the pa rt ie s. 4 F ir st, the pa

rt ie s d isp ute wh e the r t

he re is a str on gloc a l inte re st i n d e c idi ngthi s controve rsy

in Arizona. SeeDef

s.’ Mot. at 8-9; Pls.’ Opp’n at 11-14. Sec ond, the par ties disag ree over whether

the re lative cong estion of the ca lendar s of the potential tra nsfer ee a nd transfe ror c ourts supports transfe r. SeeDef s.’ Mot. at 10; Pls.’ Opp’n at 11. Third, the pa rties dispute where the claims ar ose. SeeDef s.’ Mot. at 11; Pls.’ Opp’n at 8-9. F ourth, the par ties disag ree over howmuch def ere nce should be g iven to the par ties’ chose n forums. SeeDef s.’ Mot. at 11-12; Pls.’ Opp’n at 5-8. As the moving pa rty , the def

endants c arr

y the burde n of demonstratingthat these fa ctors we igh in f avor of transfe r. Peter B. v . Cent. IntelligenceAgenc y , 62 0 F . Su pp . 2 d 5 8, 66 (D .D .C. 20 09 ). Th e c ourt tur ns no w t o th e fo ur

c on te ste d f

a c tor s. 1 . L o ca l I n te re s t i n De ci d i n g L o ca l Co n tr o v er s i es a t H o me The de fenda

nts argue that ther e is a stronglocal intere st in having this ca se dec ided in the Di str ic t of

Ar izon a be c a us e the re le va

nt p or tio ns of the Santa Cr uz Ri ve r a

re a ll l oc ate d in Arizona. Def

s.’ Mot. at 9. The plaintiffs a cknowledg e as muc h, noting that the de signation at iss ue wi ll d ir e c tly

a ff e c t th e “ us e and

de ve lop me nt o f r e a l pr op e rt y ” loc ate d in

Ar izon a . Co mpl
. ¶ 2 7. Th e pla int if

fs argue , h ow e ve r, that th e c a se sh ou ld r e ma in i n th e Di str ic t of Col umb ia beca use the que stions of feder al law a nd alleg ed proc edura l violations at iss ue in this case ha ve6

broad implications for the application of the CW A nationwide. Pls.’ Opp’n at 13. Furthe r, the plaintiffs contend that the involvement of off icials outside of Arizona indicate s that the deter mination concer

ning the Santa Cruz Ri ver c arr ies national sig nificanc e. Id. at 14. This Circuit has acknow ledg ed that “[t]here is a loca l interest in havinglocalized controve rsies dec ided at home.” Ad am s v . B e ll , 711 F.2d 161, 167 ( D.C. Cir. 1983) (quoting Gu lf O il Co rp . v . G ilb e rt , 3 30 U. S. 5 01 , 5 09 (1 94 7) ). Whe n a c a se a ff e c ts t he ri g hts and

int e re sts of citizens of a pa

rticular state or loca lity , conductinga trial in that state or locality is one way

for the cour ts to show respec t to those citiz ens’ inter ests. Adams , 711 F.2d at 167 n.34. I n addition, the “g eog raphic dispersion of ca ses is one wa y to avoid excessive conc entration of judicial power in a sing le tribunal.” Id. at 16 7; se e als o S te ar ns v . M c Gu ire , 512 F.2d 918, 928 ( D.C. Cir. 1974) (statingthat there is no “blanket rule that ‘national policy ’ ca ses should be brought” in the District of Columbia). In case s in which the land in dispute is located e ntirely within the proposed tra

nsfer ee district, there is some de g ree of loca l interest in decidingthe ca se in that district. See, e .g. , Shawnee Tribe v. United States , 2 98 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 1, 26 (D .D .C. 20 02 ); Trout Unli mited , 9 44 F. Supp. at 19. I n Shawnee Tribe , the prope rty at issue was loc ated ne ar a major metropolitan
c e nte r, and

the a llo c atio n o f t

he owne rs hip of

that pr op e rt

y ne c e ssa ri ly “ imp lic ate [d] c on sid e ra

ble local ec onomic, political, and environme ntal interests.” 298 F . Supp. at 26. Sim ilarly , in Trout Unlimited , the cour

t noted that the prope rty

at issue involved wate rwa y s located w ithin the tr ans fe re e dis tr ic t, a

nd that th e re g ulatio n o f t

ho se wate rw ay s a ff

e c te d lo c a l w ate r r ig hts , environmenta l regulations and local wildlife. 944 F . Supp. at 19-20. Additionally , citizens residingwithin the proposed tra nsfer ee district ha d submitt ed many comments to the court7

reg ardingthe ca se, indicatinga hig h level of loc al public intere st in the case. Id. at 20. Yet the mer e pre sence of a loc al intere st, in the form of prope rty located w ithin the proposed tra

nsfer ee district, is not dispositi ve in the tra nsfer analy sis. See Ot

ay Me sa , 5 84 F. Sup p. 2d at 12 6; Akiachak

, 502 F. Supp. 2d at 68. B y way of illustration, Ot

ay Me sa involved the desig nation of 4000 ac res in the San Die g o reg ion as a “ critica l habitat” for an enda ng ere d specie s. 584 F. Supp. 2d at 123-24. While the location of the proper ty weig hed in favor of transfe r, the c ourt emphasized that the prote ction of enda ng ere d specie s is a national conc ern, not
me re ly a loc a l on e , a

nd thu s th e c onne c tio n o f t

he c on tr ov e rs y

wa s o nly “ so me wh at stro ng e r” to the Southern District of Califor nia than it was to the District of Columbia. Id. at1 2 6
. S i m i l ar l y, in Akiachak

, the cour t noted that while the outcome of the ca se would have an immediate impac t on citizens of the proposed tra nsfer ee district, this fac tor was outwe ighe d by the other public- and pr ivate -i nte re st f

a c tor s. 50 2 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 68 ; see also Fund for Animals v. Norton , 352 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 ( D. D. C. 2 00 5) (i de nti fy inga str on gloc a l inte re st i n th e dis pute , b ut h old ingthat th is fac tor was not dispositive). L ikewise, in the instant ca se, the de fenda nts are c orre ct in noting that the loc ation of the disputed proper

ty in the proposed tra

nsfer ee district implicates some loc al intere st. No aspec t of this case, howe ver, c ompels the court to asc ribe sig nificant we ight to this fac tor. Ther e is no indication, for e x ample, that the de signation of the rele vant re ache s of the Santa Cruz River as traditional navig able waters will have a major impact on loca l economic, political and environmenta l interests. Cf. Shawnee Tribe , 298 F. Supp. 2d at 26. Nor has the c ourt rec eived
co m m en t s o r a n y

o th er ty p e o f c o m mun i ca t i o nfr o mth e p u b l i c i n d i ca t i n g th atth er e i s a h i gh deg ree of loca l public interest in the re g ulation at issue. Cf. T rout Unlimited , 944 F. Supp. at 19-8

20. On the other

hand, the hig h deg ree of involvement of of ficials outside of Ar izona indicates that the va lidity of the de termination ca

rries sig nificanc e beyond Arizona. Cf. Otay Me sa , 5 84 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 12 6. Ind e e d, the de fe nd ants do no t argue that any of fi c ia ls l oc ate d in Arizona made a

ny of the de cisions beingchalleng ed in this case. See De fs .’ Mo t. at 8- 9. As a conseque nce, the court c oncludes that the loc al intere st in deciding this case in the District of Arizona weig hs only

somewhat in fa

vor of tra nsfer
. 2. Relative Congestion of the P roposed Transf

ere e and Transf

erorCourts The sec ond disputed fac tor is whether the re lative cong estion of this court and the proposed tra

nsfer ee c ourt supports transfe r. Trout Unli mited , 9 44 F . Su pp . at 16 . T he de fe nd ants sug g est that this court’s ca lendar is overloade d with petitions for writs of habe as cor pus filed by individuals detained in Guanta namo B ay , Cuba. Def

s.’ Mot. at 10. The plaintiffs, c iting the Fe dera l Court Manag ement Statistics compiled in 2008, respond by noting that the D istrict of Arizona has eve n more pe nding c ases pe r judg eship than does this district. Pls.’ Opp’n at 11. Given the lac k of evide nce that this court’s docket is substantially more c ong ested than that of the District of Ar izona, the court holds that this factor doe s not support transfer
. 3. Loc at ion Whe r e th e Cl aim s A r os e The third fa ctor disputed by the par ties is whether the claims arose in this di strict or in the District of Arizona. The defe ndants focus on the g eog raphic location of the Santa Cruz R iver,
a sse rt ingthat any

inj ur ie s th e pla int if

fs may su ff e r a s a re su lt o f t

he EPA ’s de te rm inatio n w ou ld be conf ined to Arizona. Def

s.’ Mot. at 11. Arguing that claims “ar ise” in the location in which the injury is suffer ed, the de fenda

nts maintain that the claims in this case ar ose in Arizona. Id.9

The plaintiffs r espond that the c laims actually arose wher e the EPA a

nd Corps officia ls made the decisions re levant to this case. Pls.’ Opp’ n at 8. In case s broug ht under the A PA, courts g ener ally focus on whe re the decisionmaking proce ss occur

red to de termine whe re the claims arose
. See, e .g. , Shawnee Tribe , 298 F. Supp. 2d
at 25 ; Akiachak

, 502 F. Supp. 2d at 68. In Shawnee Tribe , the cour t noted that althoug h a fe w officia ls located in the District of Columbia had be en involved, the f inal deter mination at issue was not made in the District of Columbia. 298 F. Supp. 2d at 25. Ther efor e, the c ourt conc luded that this factor w eig hed in favor of tra nsfer from this district. Id. In c on tr a st, the c ourt in Akiachak held that bec ause the decisionmakingproce ss had occ urre d primarily within the District of Columbia and the dec isionmakers we re loc ated in the District of Columbi a, this fac tor weig hed ag ainst transfe r. 502 F . Supp. 2d at 67-68. In this case, ne ither par

ty contends that a

ny part of the decisionmakingproce ss occur red in Arizona. See Def

s.’ Mot. at 8-9; Pls.’ Opp’n at 8. The Corps’ dec ision to designate the
rea ches of

the Santa Cruz River as traditional navig able waters wa s made in California, see Compl. ¶ 4, and the EPA’s dec ision affirmingthe Corps’ dete rmination was made in the District of Columbia, seeDef

s.’ Mot. at 9. Absent any alleg ation that the dec isions were ma de by officia ls located in Arizona, this case is disti ng uishable fr om case s in which the cour t has deter mined that transfe r wa s appropr iate notwithstanding the fa ct that the re levant dec isions were made in the District of

Columbi a. See, e .g. , Va lle yCm ty . Pre

se rv ati on Com m’n v . M

ine ta , 231 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 3, 47 (D .D .C. 20 02 ). Th e re fo re , th e c ourt ho lds that th e c la ims aro se pr ima ri ly in the District of Columbia and California and, as a conseque nce, c oncludes that this fac tor weig hs ag ainst transfe r to the District of Ar izona.The lead plaintiff in this case, the Nation al A ssociation of Hom e B uilders, is lo cated in the 5 District of C olum bia, while the tw o rem ainingplain tiffs are located in A riz ona. See C om pl. at 1. 10 4 . Pa rt i es ’ C h o s en Fo ru ms The de fenda

nts contend that the plaintiffs’ choice of for um is entitl ed to minimal weig ht beca use the c ontroversy

has only an “attenuated” connec tion to the District of Columbi a. De fs.’ Mo t. at 12 . T he de fe nd a

nts fu rt he r a rgue that th e ir

c ho ic e of fo rum sh ou ld b e e nti tle d to defe renc e. SeeDef

s.’ Mot. at 11-12. The plaintiffs, on the other ha nd, maintain that their choic e of for um car ries sig nificant we ight be cause the ultimate decisionmake rs wer e located in the District of Columbia, establishing a sufficie nt nexus with this forum. Pl s.’ Opp’n at 6-7. The plaintiffs argue that the de fer ence g rante d to their choice of for um should outweigh a

ny defe renc e g rante d to the defe ndants’ choic e of f orum. Pls.’ Opp’n at 5-8. A plaintiff’s c hoice of

forum is ordinar ily

entitled to defe renc e. Trout Unli mited , 9 44 F. S u p p . at1 7 (c i t i n g Air Line Pilot s Ass’n v. Eastern Air Lines , 6 72 F . Su pp . 5 25 , 5 26 (D .D .C. 1987)). The court is mindful, howeve r, that it “must examine challeng es to persona l jurisdiction and venue car efully

to gua rd ag ainst the dang er that a plaintiff mig ht manufac ture ve nue in the District of Columbia.” Cameron v. Thornburgh , 985 F.2d 253, 256 ( D.C. Cir. 1993). When there is only

an “a ttenuated” connec tion between the controve rsy and the plaintiff’ s chosen f orum and the that f

orum is not the plaintiff’s home for um, the def

ere nce a ffor ded to the plaintiff’ s 5 choice is dimi nished. Ot

ay Me sa , 5 84 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 12 5; Trout Unli mited , 944 F. Supp. at 17. How hea vily a plaintiff’ s choice weig hs ag ainst transfe r, there fore , depends on the exis tence of a
connec tion between the underlying c ase a nd this dist rict. I f such a

connec tion ex ists, the plaintiff’s choic e of f

orum is entitled to substantial defere nce, see Pe ter B. , 620 F. Supp. 2d at11

66 ; Akiachak

, 5 02 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 68 ; TOMAC v. Norton , 1 93 F . Su pp . 2 d 1 82 , 1 96 (D .D .C. 2002), which outwe ighs the defe renc e conf err ed on the de fenda

nt’s choice of for

um, see M

ilanes v. Holder , 2 0 0 9 W L3 3 6 7 4 9 7 , at* 3 (D
. D. C
. Oc t . 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Pain v. United Tec hs Corp. , 63 7 F .2 d 7 75 , 7 84 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 0) ; Hunter v. J ohanns , 5 17 F . Su

pp . 2 d 3 40 , 3 44 (D .D .C. 2007)). As discussed in Part I I .B.3 su pra , the plaintiffs’ c laims in thi s case arose in the District of Columbi a. Consequently , the plaintiffs ar e entitled to substantial defe renc e in their c hoice of forum, and this fa ctor we ighs a g ainst permitting tra nsfer to the District of Arizona. See Akiachak , 502 F. Supp. 2d at 68 (holdingthat the ca se “pr esent[ed] a sufficiently substantial
ne xus to thi s d istri c t to wa rr ant d e fe re nc e to [the pla int if f’ s] c ho ic e of

fo rum” ); Greater Y e llo wston e Coa l. v . B os wor th , 1 80 F . Su pp . 2 d 1 24 , 1 29 (D .D .C. 20 01 ) ( e xpla ini ngthat be c a us e the c on tr ov e rs y

bo re a su bs tanti a l c onne c tio n to the pla int if fs ’ c ho se n f

or um, the pla int if

fs ’
c ho ic e of fo rum r e c e ive d g re ate r d e fe re nc e tha n th e de fe nd ants ’ c ho ic e of fo rum) ; c f. Milanes , 2009 WL3367497, at *3 (c oncludingthat the plaintiff’s c hoice of forum did not outweig h the defe ndant’s choic e of f

orum bec ause the District of Columbia was not the plaintiff’s home forum and the r eleva

nt events did not occur

in the District of Columbia). In s um, the c ourt

c on c lud e s th at a lth ou g h th e re is s ome loc a l inte re st i n d e c idi ngthi s c a se in the District of Arizona, this consideration is out weig hed by the nee d to gr ant def

ere nce to the plaintiffs’ choic e of f

orum g iven that the plaintiffs’ c laims arose in the D istrict of Columbia. The defe ndants have failed to mee t their burden of establishing that considerations of convenienc e
an d th e i n t e r e s t s o f

j u s t i c e w o u l d

b e s e r v e d b y a tr an s f e r t o th e D i s tr i c to f

A r i z o n a . A c c o r d i n g l y, the cour t denies the de fenda

nts’ motion to t ransf

er ve nue.12 IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the c ourt denies the de fenda nts’ motion to t ransf

er ve nue to the District of Arizona. An Or der c onsistent with thi s Memorandum Opinion is separ ately and contempora

neously issued this 30th day

of De cembe r, 2009.

RI CARDO M. URBI

NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge