Center for Environmental Health v. Nishida

Background

The plaintiffs brought one claim under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. They challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s responses to a petition asking the agency to begin a rulemaking proceeding or issue an order requiring The Chemours Company to fund and conduct health and environmental-effects testing for 54 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances allegedly released from a facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina, into the Cape Fear River watershed.

The EPA initially denied the petition in January 2021. After the plaintiffs sought reconsideration, the EPA granted the petition in December 2021, but required testing for only seven of the 54 substances. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to seek review of both agency decisions and requested declaratory relief, an order directing broader testing, and costs.

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs opposed transfer, pointing to the Oakland headquarters of the Center for Environmental Health, and alternatively asked for transfer to the District of Columbia, where the defendant agency’s headquarters are located.

Transfer Standard

Section 1404(a) permits a federal district court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to transfer a civil action to another district where it could have been brought. The party seeking transfer generally bears the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate. The court considered whether the case could originally have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina and whether convenience and justice favored transfer.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that venue would have been proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). The court cited the North Carolina locations of several plaintiff organizations, the facility involved in the requested testing, the Cape Fear River watershed, and the alleged effects on North Carolina residents and wildlife.

The court gave little weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of the Northern District of California. It found that the operative facts arose in North Carolina, that the plaintiffs did not allege that the EPA’s consideration of the petition occurred in California, and that the Oakland office was the only connection between the case and the chosen forum identified in the opinion.

The court rejected the argument that the Northern District of California was better suited because one judge there had decided two other Toxic Substances Control Act cases. It concluded that the statute is federal law and that the Eastern District of North Carolina was similarly qualified to apply it, so keeping the case in California would not create judicial-economy benefits.

The court found that access to witnesses favored transfer. The defendants identified potential depositions involving North Carolina-based members of the plaintiff organizations and two potential nonparty witnesses who were employees of Chemours. The court also noted that it could not compel unwilling nonparty witnesses located far away. The court did not decide whether evidence outside the administrative record would ultimately be considered, leaving that issue for the court handling the case after the pleading stage.

Finally, the court found that the case’s center of gravity and local interest were in the Eastern District of North Carolina because the requested testing concerned substances allegedly released into the Cape Fear River watershed. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ asserted national and California interests did not establish a comparable local interest in California.

Disposition

The court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The court also denies plaintiffs’ alternative request to transfer the case to the District of Columbia. The opinion addresses venue and convenience; it does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ Toxic Substances Control Act claim. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.