RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.
On January 12, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Bernard Roland filed this action against Defendant Branch Banking & Trust Corporation
In February 2008, Mr. Roland executed a mortgage loan agreement with Liberty Mortgage Corporation ("Liberty") against property located Fort Washington, Maryland. See Compl. ¶ 5; Note, Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Ex. C, ECF No. 5-4.
Mr. Roland commenced this action against Defendants on January 12, 2015, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs,
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (3), (5), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Defs.' Mot. Dismiss.
Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Roland's complaint on multiple grounds, including insufficient service of process, improper venue, res judicata, and various jurisdictional reasons. The Court first addresses the issue of service of process and finds that, on the record before the Court, it appears that service of process on both Defendants was valid. The Court then turns to the issue of venue. For the reasons explained below, though the Court finds that venue in this District is improper, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint on that ground and instead, in the interest of justice, transfer venue of this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where it is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In light of this ruling, the Court does not reach the remainder of Defendants' arguments in its motion to dismiss.
Defendants argue that the Complaint should be dismissed or, in the alternative, service should be quashed, for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 3-5.
"Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied." Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987).
The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the validity of service of process. "[T]o do so, he must demonstrate that the procedure employed satisfied the requirements of the relevant portions of
Courts in this District have recognized that "[w]here the defendant has received actual notice of the action, the provisions of Rule 4(e) should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court," because "[t]he rules governing service of process are not designed to create an obstacle course for plaintiffs to navigate, or a cat-and-mouse game for defendants who are otherwise subject to the court's jurisdiction." Ali v. Mid-Atlantic Settlement Servs., Inc., 233 F.R.D. 32, 35-36 (D.D.C.2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Pollard, 285 F.R.D. at 128 n.9 (same).
Defendants argue that that service on BB & T was "insufficient." Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 4. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part that a corporation may be served in a judicial district of the United States "by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B).
Mr. Roland's process server states in her affidavit that she served the summons on Pam Adam-Motley, "who is designated to accept service of process on behalf of Branch Banking & Trust Corporation." Return of Service Aff. at 1. In their brief, Defendants state that "BB & T has no record of receiving the summons or complaint" and that "Pam Adam-Motley is not designated by law to accept service" on behalf of BB & T. Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 4. BB & T adds that it has "no record of any current or former employee or officer of BB & T with that name." Id. In his opposition, Mr. Roland states that his process server did not serve BB & T directly but rather served its agent for service of process, CT Corporation System.
Despite the lack of clarity in the process server's affidavit, in the absence of any other evidence, the Court finds that Defendants have not successfully rebutted the
Defendants also argue that service on Samuel I. White P.C. was "insufficient." Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 4-5.
Mr. Roland's process server states in her affidavit that she delivered a summons to Valena Metcalfe, a "Legal Assistant & Authorized Agent of Samuel I. White, P.C." Return of Service Aff. at 2. Defendants do not dispute that Ms. Metcalfe received the papers and that she is a legal assistant but argue that service on White P.C. was improper, because the papers were not served "on a managing or general agent, or any agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service or a manner prescribed or serving an individual." Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 4-5. In his opposition, Mr. Roland states that his process server "served the person who is impliedly authorized to receive service of process and is apparently in charge of the office." Pl.'s Opp. at 27. He argues that delivery to Ms. Metcalfe was sufficient under Maryland law, citing Maryland's Rules of Court. See id.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a corporation may be served in the manner that the rules prescribe for serving an individual, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A), and thus permit service on corporations by "following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made," Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Maryland's Rules of Court provide, in relevant part:
Md. Rules 2-124(d).
As with the issues concerning service of BB & T, neither Defendants nor Mr. Roland provide the Court with any evidence in support of their relevant factual claims, such as an affidavit from a partner of White P.C. or Ms. Metcalfe or a supplemental affidavit from the process server.
The Court will therefore deny Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for improper service or, in the alternative, to quash service.
Defendants next argue that the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for improper venue. See Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 5-6. As discussed below, the Court finds that venue in this District is improper and exercises its authority to transfer venue of this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
"To prevail on a motion to dismiss for improper venue, ... the defendant must present facts that will defeat the plaintiff's assertion of venue." Ananiev v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 968 F.Supp.2d 123, 129 (D.D.C.2013). The burden, however, remains on the plaintiff to prove that venue is proper when an objection is raised, "since it is the plaintiff's obligation to institute the action in a permissible forum." McCain v. Bank of Am., 13 F.Supp.3d 45, 51 (D.D.C.2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether venue is proper, courts must accept the plaintiff's well-pled factual allegations as true, resolve any factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Hunter v. Johanns, 517 F.Supp.2d 340, 342 (D.D.C.2007); Davis v. Am. Soc'y of Civil Eng'rs, 290 F.Supp.2d 116, 121 (D.D.C.2003). The court need not accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. See 2215 Fifth St. Assocs. v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 50, 54 (D.D.C.2001).
Venue is proper in a district where (1) a defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought, wherever the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The first basis for venue is plainly inapplicable here, as it is uncontested that neither of the Defendants reside in the District of Columbia. The Complaint lists an address for BB & T in South Carolina and an address for White P.C. in Virginia.
The second basis for venue is also inapplicable, as there is no indication that any of the events giving rise to Mr. Roland's claims, let alone a substantial part of them, occurred in the District of Columbia. For example, Mr. Roland does not allege in his Complaint that any of the events concerning the financing of the property at issue took place in the District or that Defendants
Instead, Mr. Roland argues that venue in this District is proper because "the banks obtained a charter from the United States Congress," which places them "in a public-private partnership with United States" and requires that this case be heard in Washington, D.C. See Pl.'s Opp. at 20 (citing 4 U.S.C. §§ 71-72). He also cites the Supreme Court's statement in Davis v. Elmira Sav. Bank, 161 U.S. 275, 283, 16 S.Ct. 502, 40 L.Ed. 700 (1896) that "[n]ational banks are instrumentalities of the federal government" as support. See id. at 20. Essentially, Mr. Roland's sole basis for venue in this District is his proposition that any suit against any nationally-chartered bank can be brought in the District of Columbia. This proposition has no basis in the law. The statutory provisions that Mr. Roland cites merely provide that the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of the federal government, see 4 U.S.C. §§ 71-72, and the Supreme Court's decision in Davis concerned the supremacy of federal statutes governing national banks, see Davis, 161 U.S. at 283, 16 S.Ct. 502. Neither the cited statute nor Davis bear any relevance to the issue of whether venue is proper.
Finally, the third statutory basis for venue is inapplicable, because there is at least one other district in which venue would otherwise be proper. The property that is central to this case is located in Maryland, and many of the other events giving rise to Mr. Roland's claims, including the foreclosure proceeding, took place in Maryland, which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), makes the District of Maryland a proper venue for Mr. Roland's claims.
The Court therefore concludes that venue in this District is improper.
Having determined that venue in this District is improper, the Court must either dismiss Mr. Roland's Complaint or, if the Court finds that it is "in the interest of justice, transfer [the] case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The decision whether to transfer or dismiss "rests within the sound discretion of the district court." Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C.Cir.1983). See also 14D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3827 (3d ed. 2015) ("[I]t is enough simply that the district judge, in the sound exercise of discretion, concludes that transfer is in the interest of justice, as many courts have concluded."). "Generally, the interest of justice requires transferring such cases to the appropriate judicial district rather than dismissing them." Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792 F.Supp.2d 58, 64 (D.D.C.2011) (citing Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466-67, 82 S.Ct. 913, 8 L.Ed.2d 39 (1962); James v. Booz-Allen, 227 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C.2002)).
The Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, rather than dismiss Mr. Roland's Complaint. The Court makes this determination based on several considerations. First, although Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed for improper venue, they do not address whether transferring venue would be appropriate, let alone mention 28 U.S.C. § 1406, or offer any reason for the Court to depart
Accordingly, the Court will transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court does not reach the remainder of Defendants' arguments in support of their motion to dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) and transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.
