United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing v. Design-Build

Background

Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. brought this action against Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. and Great American Insurance Group. The action includes a claim under the Miller Act, a federal law concerning payment bonds for federal public-works projects. The parties jointly submitted a brief and stipulation asking the court to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska at Anchorage.

The parties explained that a related action was already pending in the District of Alaska and involved substantially similar facts and circumstances. They stated that transferring this case would place the entire dispute before one court for case management through final disposition. They also stated that Alaska was a proper venue because the court had previously found a forum-selection clause valid and determined that it overrode the Miller Act’s venue provision. The parties agreed that the District of Alaska had subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute and was a suitable venue.

Reasons for Transfer

The parties relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal district court to transfer a civil action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice, when the statutory conditions are met. They argued that transfer would serve those interests because related discovery was already underway in Alaska and because Great American’s interests involved the bond it provided for the federal public-works project.

The parties also stated that Asphalt Surfacing had filed its Miller Act claim timely and in good faith to comply with the statute’s venue requirement. They argued that dismissal instead of transfer could prevent Asphalt Surfacing from timely asserting the claim in Alaska. The stipulation stated that the parties did not dispute Alaska’s personal jurisdiction over the Miller Act claim or the suitability of Alaska as the venue.

Ruling

Judge Susan Van Keulen found that the change in venue would serve the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice, that venue was proper in Alaska, and that the parties had consented to the transfer. The court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to transfer venue and ordered that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska at Anchorage. The order addressed the location of the case and did not decide the underlying claims.