Here's an odd one. A few weeks ago the CFPB issued a new rule substantially cutting late fees on credit card payments. The US Chamber of Commerce quickly sued. They unsurprisingly chose to file in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas, home to judges Reed O'Connor and Mark Pittman, who are both well known for regularly ruling in favor of Republicans.
But a funny thing happened: Pittman got the case and has determined that suing in Texas was ridiculous. Rather, the case belongs in Washington DC since that's where the CFPB, the Chamber of Commerce, and most of the lawyers reside:
Venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a Plaintiffs’ whim where and how a lawsuit is filed.... The Rule at issue in this case was promulgated in Washington D.C., by government agencies stationed in Washington D.C., and by employees who work in Washington D.C. Most of the Plaintiffs in this case are also based in Washington D.C. and eighty percent of the attorneys in this matter work in Washington D.C.
....As far as this Court can discern, not one of the banks or credit card companies directly affected by the future Rule is located in the Fort Worth Division.... This case does not belong in the Northern District of Texas and certainly not in the Fort Worth Division....The Court concludes that this case should be and is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Maybe folks are really getting the message that judge shopping is now a thing of the past. Very cautiously, I'd count this as good news.
Yeah, I think they got the message. Both from the recent Judicial Conference ruling against single judge shopping and the oral arguments at SCOTUS this week.
Shocking! Just to whom do they think they owe loyalty?
Once again, Mister Trump would never let this happen!
Potentially a good sign, but I'm with you on the caution too-- we need to see what these birds do with a few cases where vaguely colorable in-district or in-division plaintiffs can be roped into otherwise obviously shopped complaints.
I'm not at all fond of venue shopping, but at the same time that seems rather like venue limiting. Every federal regulation must be litigated at the DC circuit? I would have thought that where the credit-card companies have their headquarters would have been a reasonable venue.
Maybe this judge isn't so happy with the new policy on judge-shopping and wants to make some kind of point by phrasing it that way? Maybe something like "OK, DC district, let's see how you like it when every agency complaint on God's green earth gets filed with you"?
I think it'd be a fair bet that most of the law firms involved in all these kinds of cases at least have DC offices, if they aren't completely run out of DC, and ditto a lot of the organizations behind the complaints. Up to yesterday the court system was fine with complaints originated by these DC-based interests being filed in the Northeast Podunk division of the district of West Undershirt to get the right judge. He's been one of those judges and knows all about it. But now the Judicial Conference is taking away all his fun. So why shouldn't he have a little hissy fit?
Indeed it might have been, but as the order points out, Ft. Worth isn't such a one. And lacking any other obvious alternative, DC is it. It is, after all, where one of the parties is located.
This really doesn't seem inappropriate at all. On the contrary, filing it in FTW WAS an inappropriate abuse, and it's the sort of thing the new regs are trying to stop.
Pingback: Venue shopping lives! – Kevin Drum