Native Village of Point Hope et al v. US Environmental Protection Agency

Filing 49

ORDER granting 42 Intervenor-Defendants' Motion to Transfer Case to the US District Court for the District of Alaska by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

NATIVE VILLAGE OF POINT HOPE, et
al.,

11
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C11-667 MJP
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER

12
v.
13
14

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Defendant,

15
16

And

17

TECK ALASKA INCORPORATED, et
al.,

18
19

IntervenorDefendants

20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on Intervenor-Defendants’ motion to transfer. (Dkt.
No. 42.) Having reviewed the motion, Plaintiffs’ opposition (Dkt. No. 43), the reply (Dkt. No.

23
24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER- 1

1 47), and all related papers, the Court GRANTS the motion. The U.S. Environmental Protection
2 Agency has not taken a position on the matter.
3

Analysis

4 A.

Standard

5

The parties agree that this matter can be litigated in Alaska. (Dkt. No. 47 at 2.) The

6 Court thus finds this aspect of the venue requirements satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
7

A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple factors to

8 determine whether transfer is appropriate. The court may consider: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of
9 forum; (2) the convenience of witnesses and the parties; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the
10 applicable law; (4) the ease of access to evidence; (5) any local interest in the controversy and
11 contacts with the chosen forum, and (6) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each
12 forum. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). “The question of
13 which forum will better serve the interest of justice is of predominant importance on the question
14 of transfer, and the factors involving convenience of parties and witnesses are in fact
15 subordinate.” Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. C03-3711 MHP,
16 2003 WL 22387598, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct.14, 2003). The Intervenor-Defendants bear the burden
17 of showing the inconvenience of litigating in this forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth
18 Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).
19 B.

Alaska is the Proper Venue

20

After considering all of the above factors, the Court finds that this case should be

21 transferred to Alaska.
22 \\
23 \\
24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER- 2

1

1.

2

Generally the plaintiff’s choice of form is accorded deference and “should rarely be

Plaintiff’s choice of forum is outweighed by the ties to Alaska

3 disturbed.” Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985). However,
4 where the forum has little connection to the action, the Court may accord less deference to the
5 plaintiff’s choice of venue. Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2005)
6 (“[N]umerous courts have given less deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum where the action
7 has little connection with the chosen forum.”)
8

Plaintiffs’ choice to litigate this matter in this District is accorded little deference in light

9 of the substantial impact this case will likely have in Alaska and the few connections it has to
10 this District. The Intervenor-Defendants make a strong argument that Alaska has greater ties to
11 this case than Washington or this District’s residents. The case involves a challenge to water
12 quality standards of the Red Dog Creek, a creek unique to Alaska. The water quality decision
13 only applies to the Red Dog Creek, and it implicates an Alaska state agency’s underlying
14 administrative decision. The Intervenor-Defendants are two Alaska corporations operating on
15 the Red Dog Creek. Against these contacts to Alaska, Plaintiffs identify only two ties to this
16 District. First, the EPA’s regional office where the dispute water quality standard was adopted is
17 in Seattle. Second, some of Plaintiffs’ constituents reside in Western Washington. However,
18 the numbers are relatively small: fewer than 3 percent of one group’s members and 1 percent of
19 the other live in this District.
20

The Court finds that the ties here clearly favor Alaska as the preferred venue, despite

21 Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. The impact of the litigation will be felt primarily in Alaska, while
22 the only significant tie to Seattle is the fact the EPA’s decision was made here.
23 \\
24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER- 3

1

2.

2

The remaining factors do no cut heavily in favor of either side. First, the Intervenor-

Other factors

3 Defendants have not identified any factor of convenience that is better served by transfer. The
4 case will be decided based on an administrative record, making issues of convenience largely
5 irrelevant. Second, the “access to proof” element is similarly moot, as the case will be decided on
6 an administrative record. Third, the congestion of the court in Alaska is nearly identical to this
7 District’s docket. (Dkt. No. 43 at 11.) Fourth, there is also nothing suggesting that either court
8 is more or less familiar with the Clean Water Act.
9
10

3.

Conclusion

Having considered all of the above factors, the Court finds this matter should be litigated

11 in Alaska. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99. The local Alaskan interests far outweigh the
12 Plaintiffs’ decision to file suit in this District, whose ties to the matter are attenuated. Though
13 the remaining factors do not necessarily favor the transfer, they also do not suggest any reason
14 why the matter cannot be efficiently and effectively decided in Alaska.
15
16

Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Intervenor-Defendants’ motion to transfer. The matter should be

17 litigated in Alaska, whose ties to this action substantially outweigh the Plaintiffs’ decision to file
18 suit in this District. The Court therefore TRANSFERS this case to the United States District
19 Court for the District of Alaska.
20

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

21

Dated this 21st day of September, 2011.

A

22
23

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER- 4