Jump to Content
close
close
ABA: The American Bankers Association
Case Documents

Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on Venue and Response to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FORT WORTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; LONGVIEW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION; CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION; and TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS, Plaintiffs,

v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU; and ROHIT CHOPRA, in his official capacity as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Defendants.
Download

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Texas Association of Business, filed a complaint challenging CFPB’s recently published Credit Card Penalty Fees Rule in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e)(1)(B) and (C). This Court requested expedited briefing on venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) from both parties on March 18, 2024, and, in the alternative, invited Defendants to file a motion pursuant to that provision. In response, Defendants moved to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 USC § 1404(a). Plaintiffs respectfully submit that denying the motion to transfer would best serve both the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice. The public and private interest factors do not outweigh the deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of venue in this case, especially where two of Plaintiffs’ declarants have over ten percent of their total receivables from Texas, with over 800,000 cardholders combined in the Fort Worth region. App. 3-4, Decl. of Matthew Mahar ¶¶ 6, 9; App. 7, Joint Decl. of Baron Schlachter and Bruce Bowman Decl. ¶ 7. If this Court disagrees and believes that a transfer is appropriate, Plaintiffs respectfully request a transfer to the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, where Plaintiff Longview Chamber of Commerce resides and where harm from the Final Rule is similarly being felt. Finally, if this Court nevertheless decides to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court stay the order to afford Plaintiffs time to seek appellate review. See In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 507 n.1 (5th Cir. 2024) (commending a district judge for “stat[ing] his plan to hold future ‘order[s] to transfer venue for a short period in the event a party wishes to challenge the transfer’”).

Download to read the full text. 

In Depth

Related Products

Looking for More Information on This Case?

Follow this and other cases ABA is involved in, using ABA's Litigation Tracker.

See All ABA Litigation

Related to This