The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
KIRANMAI KOLLA, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 1:20CV688
)
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,1 )
Secretary of Homeland )
Security, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OSTEEN, JR., District Judge
Presently before this court is Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss or Transfer Venue, (Doc. 11), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), and 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). (Doc.
11.) Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ motion disputing
dismissal but agreeing that transfer to the District of Columbia
would be appropriate and requesting that such a transfer be
made. (Doc. 15.) Defendants filed a reply reiterating the
request for transfer without mentioning dismissal. (Doc. 18.)
This court agrees with the parties and will grant the motion to
1 The United States Senate confirmed Alejandro Mayorkas as
Secretary of Homeland Security, and he took the oath of office
on February 2, 2021. The case caption is hereby amended to
accurately reflect Mr. Mayorkas as Defendant.
transfer this case to the District of Columbia. By granting this
motion, this court finds that Plaintiffs do not waive any
arguments that venue is also proper in this district. (See Doc.
15 at 1-2.) Also pending before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. 6). In light of the
transfer, this court will defer ruling on that motion to the
transferee court.
I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Plaintiffs are each citizens and nationals of India who
maintain residences in various states throughout the United
States. (Complaint (“Compl.”) (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 1-17.) Plaintiffs
challenge Presidential Proclamation 10052, which “determined
that the entry, through December 31, 2020, of certain aliens as
immigrants and nonimmigrants would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States,” including “H-1B, H-2B, J, and L
nonimmigrant visa program.” Suspension of Entry of Immigrants
and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor
Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel
Coronavirus Outbreak, 85 Fed. Reg. 38,263, 38,264 (June 22,
2020). Plaintiffs allege that the Proclamation “overrides a
detailed and reticulated statutory regime, and subverts
Congress’s legislative compromises, regulating the employment of
foreign nationals and providing for the needs of United States
employers.” (Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶ 32.) For this reason, Plaintiffs
argue that the executive expressly and unlawfully overrode the
Immigration and Nationality Act by issuing the Proclamation.
(Id. ¶ 31.)
II. ANALYSIS
The parties agree that the case should be transferred to
the District of Columbia. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that
“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been
brought.” The statute sets forth a two-step process for
determining whether or not to transfer the case. The court must
first determine whether the action could have been brought in
the district to which Defendants seeks a transfer. See id.;
Knight Med., Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 765 F. Supp. 291,
292 (M.D.N.C. 1991). “After determining that a suit could have
been brought in another district, the court must determine
whether that forum is a legally convenient one pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Knight Med., 765 F. Supp. at 292.
When making such a determination, a district court must
weigh several discretionary factors, including:
(1) the plaintiff's initial choice of forum; (2)
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3)
availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling witnesses, and the cost of obtaining
attendance of willing and unwilling witnesses; (4)
possibility of a view of the premises, if appropriate;
(5) enforceability of a judgment, if one is obtained;
(6) relative advantage and obstacles to a fair trial;
(7) other practical problems that make a trial easy,
expeditious, and inexpensive; (8) administrative
difficulties of court congestion; (9) local interest
in having localized controversies settled at home;
(10) appropriateness in having a trial of a diversity
case in a forum that is at home with the state law
that must govern the action; and (11) avoidance of
unnecessary problems with conflicts of laws.
Brown v. Flowers, 297 F. Supp. 2d 846, 850 (M.D.N.C. 2003)
(citing Plant Genetic Sys. N.V. v. Ciba Seeds, 933 F. Supp. 519,
527 (M.D.N.C. 1996)). It is the moving party's burden to prove
that the balance of factors favors transfer. Speed Trac Techs.,
Inc. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 567 F. Supp. 2d 799, 803
(M.D.N.C. 2008). While a district court has discretion
to transfer the action to a more appropriate venue, a court
should not transfer venue where doing so would only shift the
inconvenience to another party. See id.
The first step for this court in assessing whether
a transfer is appropriate is determining whether the transferee
court is one which the action could have been brought
originally; in other words, whether the transferee court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the action, whether venue is
proper there, and whether the defendant is amenable to process
issuing out of the transferee court. Cable–La, Inc. v. Williams
Commc'ns, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 569, 574 (M.D.N.C. 1999). The
Defendants in their official capacities operate out of the
District of Columbia, and the events giving rise to the claims
occurred at the White House - given this was a presidential
proclamation. The action could have been brought there
originally and the Defendants are, in fact, amenable to such a
transfer. There is a more substantial local interest for this
case in the District of Columbia than in North Carolina, given
where Defendants are located and the origin of the policy in the
District of Columbia.
Administrative interests of the courts also urge transfer,
as it would allow for consolidation of this case with related
action Panda v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01907 (D.D.C. filed July 14,
2020). Panda involves “the same six causes of action against the
Proclamation 10052” and requests identical relief. (Doc. 12 at
7-8.) Finally, “all of the potential witnesses are located in
the District of Columbia or India,” rather than North Carolina,
so access to proof weighs in favor of transfer. (Id. at 29.)
Overall, the convenience factors weigh in favor of granting
Defendants’ – and Plaintiffs’ – request to transfer.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
or Transfer Venue, (Doc. 11), is GRANTED and that this case
shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. 6), is DENIED AS MOOT.
This the 22nd day of March, 2021.
Li Wakes
Ly Winn L. & □□
United States District Ju
-_ 6 -_