Case Detail
| Case Title | SIERRA CLUB v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2012cv01852 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-11-15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2012-11-29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | SIERRA CLUB | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that he does not have personal jurisdiction over the TVA and, as a result, the Sierra Club's FOIA suit against the agency must be transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee. The Sierra Club had filed several requests with the TVA concerning its plans for a coal plant in Tennessee. When the agency issued a draft Environmental Assessment on the plant, the Sierra Club filed suit in the District of Columbia asking for a preliminary injunction to force the agency to turn over requested documents. But Lamberth found he did not have jurisdiction over TVA. He noted that "the Sierra Club points to the word 'jurisdiction' [in FOIA] and concludes that this 'plain language' gives this Court personal jurisdiction over TVA. This is incorrect. Congress could have used the term 'jurisdiction' to refer to (a) subject matter jurisdiction; (b) personal jurisdiction and not subject matter jurisdiction; (c) both personal and subject matter jurisdiction; or (d) neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction in the technical legal sense of those terms. The Sierra Club has offered no textual or logical support for its conclusion that either one of the possible readings that include personal jurisdictionâ€"(b) or (c)â€"is the best reading." He indicated that "other venue-conferring statutes have similarly been held not to confer personal jurisdiction." The Sierra Club argued that since Congress made government corporations like TVA subject to FOIA at the same time it changed the venue provisions in FOIA the two changes must have been intended to work together. Lamberth disagreed. "Simultaneous enactment, without more, does not imply that Congress intended the TVA to be subject to personal jurisdiction in D.C. . . .Given that there is 'nothing at all about service of process or personal jurisdiction' in the provision at issue here, it seems 'just as likely' that Congress enacted the two provisions at the same time without contemplating the thorny issue now presented." Lamberth noted that "neither the plain meaning nor the legislative history of the provision provide sufficient evidence that Congress intended to allow extraterritorial service of process. This Court will not do Congress' work for them." Lamberth then looked to the D.C. long-arm statute, which provides jurisdiction over claims that arise from transacting business in the District. But he observed that there existed an exception for businesses whose presence in Washington was solely concerned with dealing with government issues. The Sierra Club pointed out that TVA had a small office in D.C. that tracked government issues of concern to TVA. Lamberth indicated that "this office fits squarely into the government contacts exception, and prevents this Court from finding personal jurisdiction." Since the Sierra Club has asked Lamberth to transfer the case to the Middle District for Tennessee if he found he did not have personal jurisdiction, he agreed the transfer was a proper.
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
