Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-351 (RWR).
March 24, 2005
ORDER
Plaintiff filed a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., against the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and three of its employees. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or for change of venue. Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss, but agrees venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia.
A civil action against an agency, officer, or employee of the United States may be brought in any judicial district in which (1) the defendant resides; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) where the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). According to the complaint, plaintiff resides in Pennsylvania. For venue purposes, the USPTO is a resident of the district in which its principal office is located. 35 U.S.C. § 1(b). The parties agree that the USPTO's principal office is in the Eastern District of Virginia. None of the actions alleged in the complaint occurred in this district. Therefore, this Court is not the proper venue for plaintiff's claim.
When a court concludes that venue is improper, it can either dismiss the complaint without prejudice or transfer for the case "in the interest of justice" to any district in which the action could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Bourke v. Hawk-Sawyer, 269 F.3d 1072, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) a court may transfer a case to any other district where it might have been brought "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." In considering whether transfer would be proper, the court considers the following factors:
[T]he convenience of the witnesses of plaintiff and defendant; ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory processes to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; the amount of expense for the willing witnesses; the relative congestion of the calendars of potential transferor and transferee courts; and other practical aspects of expeditiously and conveniently conducting a trial.SEC v. Page Airways, 464 F.Supp. 461, 463 (D.D.C. 1978).
Even though a court should typically give deference to a plaintiff's forum choice, it need give substantially less deference when the forum preferred by the plaintiff is not his home forum. Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981); Boers v. United States, 133 F.Supp.2d 64, 65 (D.D.C. 2001). Moreover, "there is certainly no reason why all cases involving the construction or constitutionality of a federal statute should be litigated in the District of Columbia." Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 925 n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc). This Court is not an appropriate forum when the case does not involve an issue of national policy which would require the testimony of high-level agency officials in Washington, D.C, see id. at 932-33, and the District of Columbia has no apparent connection to this case aside from being the capital of the United States. See Boers, 133 F.Supp.2d at 66.
Since the events that gave rise to this action occurred in Virginia, the defendants reside in that jurisdiction, and the parties agree that transfer is appropriate, the Court will transfer the case in the interest of justice. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss or for change of venue [Dkt.# 16] is GRANTED. The case is ordered TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The disposition of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is a matter to be addressed by the transferee court.