Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02173-CJN
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, et al.,
Defendants.

NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Defendants Letitia James, sued in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of
New York, and Michael R. Schmidt, sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Taxation and Finance (collectively, the “New York Defendants”),
through their undersigned counsel, move pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Complaint against them because this Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over the New York Defendants and this District is an improper venue, or in the
alternative, to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a). The grounds supporting this motion are set forth in the accompanying memorandum
of law.

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 5

Pursuant to the Court’s order dated August 1, 2019 (ECF No 25), Plaintiff’s opposition to
this motion is due on or before August 19, 2019. A proposed order is attached.
Dated:

New York, New York
August 9, 2019
LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General of the State of New York
By:

/s/ Andrew Amer
Andrew Amer
Special Litigation Counsel
28 Liberty Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 416-6127
Andrew.amer@ag.ny.gov
Attorney for Defendants Letitia James, in her
official capacity, and Michael R. Schmidt, in
his official capacity

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02173-CJN
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, et al.,
Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
After considering the motion filed by Defendants Letitia James, sued in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, and Michael R. Schmidt, sued in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance
(collectively, the “New York Defendants”) to dismiss this action against them for lack of
personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion is GRANTED. Mr. Trump has failed to meet his burden of
establishing the existence of personal jurisdiction over the New York Defendants. Reuber v.
United States, 787 F.2d 599, 599 (D.C. Cir. 1986). He has neither alleged facts in the Complaint
nor pointed to any evidence in his opposition showing that the New York Defendants reside in
this District for purposes of exercising general jurisdiction under D.C. Code § 13-422, or have
sufficient “minimum contacts” with this District for purposes of exercising specific jurisdiction

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 5

under D.C.’s long-arm statute, D.C. Code § 12-423, or the Due Process Clause. Lemon v.
Kramer, 270 F. Supp. 3d 125, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations,
S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
It is hereby ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed against the New York
Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Dated: _____________________

________________________
Hon. Carl J. Nichols
United States District Judge

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26 Filed 08/09/19 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 9, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be filed via
this Court’s CM/ECF system, which I understand caused service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Andrew Amer
Andrew Amer

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02173-CJN
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, et al.,
Defendants.

NEW YORK DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE

LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General
State of New York
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Attorney for Defendants Letitia
James, in her official capacity, and
Michael R. Schmidt, in his official
capacity
Andrew Amer
Special Litigation Counsel
of Counsel

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 27

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
I.

THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
NONRESIDENT NEW YORK DEFENDANTS ........................................................ 3
A. There Is No General Jurisdiction Over The New York Defendants
Because They Do Not Reside In The District Of Columbia ................................ 6
B. The Court Has No Specific Jurisdiction Over The Nonresident New
York Defendants Because They Have No Minimum Contacts With This
Forum ................................................................................................................... 7
C. Alternatively, D.C.’s Personal Jurisdiction Provisions Do Not Apply To
State Officials Sued In Their Official Capacities ............................................... 15

II. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A PROPER VENUE ............................ 16
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
2215 Fifth St. Assocs. v. U–Haul Int’l, Inc., 148 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2001).......................... 17
Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9 (1845) ......................................................................................... 18
Ali v. District of Columbia, 278 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............................................................. 13
Alkanani v. Aegis Def. Servs., LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2014), appeal dismissed,
No. 14-7056, 2014 WL 4628907 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2014) .............................................. 7
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 4
Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) ......................................... 13
Brunson v. Kalil & Co., 404 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2005) ....................................................... 11
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) ................................................................ 12
Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ....................................................... 15, 18
Capel v. Capel, 272 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.D.C. 2017) ...................................................................... 10
Coalition on Sensible Transp. Inc. v. Dole, 631 F. Supp. 1382 (D.D.C. 1986) ....................... 8, 11
Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio—CBCC v. Applied Indus. Materials
Corp., 35 A.3d 1127 (D.C. 2012) ..................................................................................... 10
Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ............................................................ 19
Cornish v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.D.C. 2012) ............................................... 13, 15
Dougherty v. United States, 156 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2016) ................................................... 4
Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) .......................................................... 17
Envtl. Research Int'l, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Eng'rs, Inc., 355 A.2d 808 (D.C.
1976) (en banc) ................................................................................................................. 10
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) .......................................................................................... 13
FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Markets, Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ........................................ 4
Fuentes-Fernandez & Co. v. Caballero & Castellanos, 770 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D.D.C.
2011) ............................................................................................................................. 8, 11
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) ..................................... 4
ii

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 27

GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ..................... 4, 5
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) ................................................................................. 6, 15
Holder v. Haarmann & Reimer Corp., 779 A.2d 264 (D.C. 2001) ................................................ 9
Hunter v. Johanns, 517 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D.D.C. 2007)............................................................... 17
In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................... 18
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ......................................................... 5
Jenkins v. Kerry, 928 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2013) .................................................................... 8
Lemon v. Kramer, 270 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2017) .......................................................... 4, 5, 7
Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Skillman, 579 A.2d 244 (D.C. 1990) ............................................................ 10
Marshall v. Labor & Industries, State of Washington, 89 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2000) ............... 8
McCain v. Bank of America, 13 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2014) ................................................... 16
Moore v. Motz, 437 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2006) ...................................................................... 16
Mouzavires v. Baxter, 434 A.2d 988 (D.C.1981) ........................................................................... 9
Murphy v. Empire of Am., FSA, 746 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1984) ...................................................... 18
Myers v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 915 F.Supp.2d 136 (D.D.C. 2013) ............................................ 16, 17
Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ...................................... 4, 6, 19
Pease v. Burke, 535 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2008) ...................................................................... 4
PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ...................................... 14
Ralls Corp. v. Terna Energy USA Holding Corp., 920 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2013) ................ 11
Reuber v. United States, 787 F.2d 599 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ................................................................ 3
Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368 (D.C. 1978)................................................................................... 10
S.C. Edu. Ass’n v. Campbell, 883 F.2d 1251 (4th Cir. 1989) ....................................................... 18
Second Amendment Foundation v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.
2001) ................................................................................................................................... 3
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) ........................................................... 13
Shibeshi v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................................... 4
iii

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 5 of 27

Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2008) ..................................... 13, 14, 19
Thompson Hine, LLP v. Taieb, 734 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .................................................... 5
Turner v. Abbott, 53 F. Supp. 3d 61 (D.D.C. 2014) ..................................................................... 12
United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825 (D.C. Cir.1995) ...................................................... 5, 15, 16
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ...................................................................... 17, 18
West v. Holder, 60 F. Supp. 3d 190 (D.D.C. 2014), aff’d sub nom on other grounds, West
v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .......................................................... 7, 9, 15, 16
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) ................................................... 13, 15
Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011)..................................................... 16
Willis v. Willis, 655 F.2d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1981)............................................................................. 6
World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) ................................... 6, 13, 15
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2) ................................................................................................................ 17
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) ................................................................................................................. 17
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) ................................................................................................................. 18
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) .................................................................................................................. 2, 19
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-2003(B)(5)(a)-(c) ............................................................................... 14
D.C. Code § 13-421 ...................................................................................................................... 16
D.C. Code § 13–422........................................................................................................................ 4
D.C. Code § 13–422 (2001) ............................................................................................................ 4
D.C. Code § 13–423 (2001) ................................................................................................ 4, 5, 6, 7
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-259(b)(3) ................................................................................................... 14
N.Y. Public Officers Law § 3(1) ..................................................................................................... 6
N.Y. Tax Law § 697(f), (g) ........................................................................................................... 14
N.Y. Tax Law § 697(f-1) (2019) .......................................................................................... 1, 3, 18

iv

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 6 of 27

Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ................................................................................................................. 15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)................................................................................................................... 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) ............................................................................................................... 4
Constitutional Provisions
N.Y. Const. Art. V, § 1 ................................................................................................................... 6
U.S. Const. amend. XI .................................................................................................................. 13

v

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 7 of 27

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this action, a New York tax return filer seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a New
York statute governing the treatment of New York tax information, and to enjoin New York
officials from taking action under that New York statute. This lawsuit plainly belongs in a New
York court.
This Court has no personal jurisdiction over the New York Attorney General (“Attorney
General”) or the Commissioner of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance
(“Commissioner,” and together with the Attorney General, the “New York Defendants”).
Plaintiff alleges no facts to support this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the New
York Defendants, officials who reside in New York as required by law and work primarily in
New York. Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts to demonstrate that his sole claim asserted against
the New York Defendants – a First Amendment challenge to New York’s Tax Returns Released
Under Specific Terms (“TRUST”) Act1 – arises out of any conduct by the New York Defendants
occurring in the District of Columbia. Rather, the basis for this claim appears to be the purported
motivations of members of the New York Legislature in enacting the TRUST Act in New York.
Accordingly, there is no personal jurisdiction over the nonresident New York Defendants under
D.C.’s long-arm statute or the minimum contacts standard under the Due Process Clause, and
they should be dismissed from this case for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Nor is venue proper in this District. Neither of the New York Defendants resides in D.C.,
the complaint alleges no events or omissions by the New York Defendants taking place here, the

1

N.Y. Tax Law § 697(f-1) (2019).

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 8 of 27

only other defendant is absolutely immune from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause for the
reasons articulated by its counsel (ECF No. 14), and there is another venue that is proper – the
Southern District of New York. Plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed in its entirety for improper
venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If the Court does not dismiss the New York Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction or
dismiss the case for improper venue, then at the very least the Court should transfer this case to
the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
BACKGROUND
President Donald J. Trump commenced this suit in his individual capacity against the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means (“Committee”) and the New York
Defendants in their official capacities.2 Mr. Trump asserts two claims—one against the
Committee, and one against the New York Defendants. Count I concerns the Committee alone;
it alleges that any attempt by the Committee Chairperson to invoke the TRUST Act to request
Plaintiff’s state tax returns would exceed the scope of the Committee’s lawful authority in
violation of Article I of the Constitution and the House Rules. Complaint (“Compl.”) (ECF No.
1) at ¶¶ 70-72. For relief on Count I, Mr. Trump seeks a declaration that the Committee lacks a
legitimate legislative purpose for obtaining his state tax returns and a permanent injunction
barring the Committee from requesting or reviewing his state tax return. Id. at p. 24, ¶¶ a and b.
Count II alleges that the New York Legislature’s enactment of the TRUST Act violated
the First Amendment. The TRUST Act authorizes the Commissioner to provide the state tax
returns of certain enumerated officials to the chairpersons of three Congressional committees

2

As Plaintiff brings this suit in his individual capacity, this brief shall refer to him as either
Plaintiff or Mr. Trump.
2

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 9 of 27

when a chairperson requests such state tax returns in writing and certifies that the request is
“related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task” of Congress; the officials whose state tax
returns would be covered by the TRUST Act are the president, vice president, members of
Congress representing New York, members of the president’s executive staff, officials in a
position subject to Senate confirmation, and various New York State officials. See N.Y. Tax
Law § 697 (f-1) (1)-(2). Mr. Trump alleges that the TRUST Act facially violates his First
Amendment rights because the statute was purportedly enacted to discriminate and retaliate
against him for his politics and speech (even though the statute covers a much broader range of
public officials). Compl. at ¶¶ 74-76. For relief on Count II, Mr. Trump seeks a declaration that
the TRUST Act violates the First Amendment and permanent injunctions barring the Attorney
General from enforcing the statute and the Commissioner from complying with any request made
under the statute (whether or not related to Mr. Trump’s returns) or taking any other action to
disclose his state tax returns. Id. at p. 24, ¶¶ c-e.
By Order dated August 1, 2019, the Court adopted the New York Defendants’ proposal to
allow them to file this threshold motion raising personal jurisdiction and venue defenses (ECF
No. 25).
ARGUMENT
I.

THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE NONRESIDENT
NEW YORK DEFENDANTS
The New York Defendant should be dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Reuber v. United States, 787 F.2d
599, 599 (D.C. Cir. 1986). He must make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists
to defeat dismissal. See Second Amendment Foundation v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d
521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 787-88 (D.C.
3

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 10 of 27

Cir. 1983)). Although the facts alleged in the complaint must be construed in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff, a court need not accept the plaintiff's “conclusory statements” or “bare
allegations” regarding the defendant’s actions in a selected forum. GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v.
BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678-79 (2009); Shibeshi v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2013). A court may
“dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction without permitting the plaintiff to take
discovery or holding an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to allege
specific facts that connect the defendant with” the District of Columbia. Dougherty v. United
States, 156 F. Supp. 3d 222, 230 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Markets, Ltd.,
529 F.3d 1087, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
A federal court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the
jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Accordingly, personal jurisdiction in this District may be established
under either of the two personal jurisdiction provisions of the District of Columbia Code: (1)
D.C.’s general jurisdiction provision, D.C. Code § 13–422 (2001); and (2) D.C.’s specific
jurisdiction provision, or long-arm statute, D.C. Code § 13–423 (2001). Lemon v. Kramer, 270
F. Supp. 3d 125, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
The general jurisdiction provision authorizes courts in this District to “exercise general
personal jurisdiction over a person who is ‘domiciled in, organized under the laws of, or
maintaining [a] principle place of business in, the District of Columbia as to any claim for
relief.’” Pease v. Burke, 535 F. Supp. 2d 150, 152 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting D.C. Code § 13–422).
Where there is no general jurisdiction – i.e., where the defendants are non-residents – a court

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 11 of 27

must “examine whether jurisdiction is applicable under the state’s longarm statute and then
determine whether a finding of jurisdiction satisfies the constitutional requirements of due
process.” Thompson Hine, LLP v. Taieb, 734 F.3d 1187, 1189 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting GTE
New Media Services, 199 F.3d at 1347). Under D.C.’s long-arm statute, courts in this District are
authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over any person as to a claim for relief arising from,
inter alia, the person’s “transacting any business in the District of Columbia.” Lemon, 270 F.
Supp. 3d at 136 (quoting D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(1)).3
D.C. courts have interpreted D.C.’s long-arm statute “to provide jurisdiction to the full
extent allowed by the Due Process Clause.” United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825, 828 (D.C.
Cir.1995). Accordingly, “the statutory and constitutional jurisdictional questions, which are
usually distinct, merge into a single inquiry”: whether exercising personal jurisdiction accords
with the demands of due process. Id. at 828. A court’s jurisdiction over a defendant satisfies due
process when there are “minimum contacts,” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310, 316 (1945), between the defendant and the forum “such that he should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there,” World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297

D.C.’s long-arm statute provides, in relevant part:
(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts
directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person's—
(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia;
(2) contracting to supply services in the District of Columbia;
(3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of
Columbia;
(4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District
of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of
conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in
the District of Columbia; . . . .
(b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief
arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.
D.C. Code § 13-423.
3

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 12 of 27

(1980). Such minimum contacts must show that “the defendant purposefully avail[ed] [him]self
of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). Where such minimum
contacts are alleged under the long-arm statute’s “transacting any business” prong, the statute
requires that the asserted contacts form the basis of the legal claim at issue. D.C. Code § 13423(b) (where jurisdiction is based solely on “transacting any business” prong, “only a claim for
relief arising from acts” purportedly constituting the transaction of business “may be asserted
against him”); see Naartex, 722 F.2d at 787 (plaintiff must show that defendant’s “contacts with
the District form at least part of the basis for its claims”); Willis v. Willis, 655 F.2d 1333, 1336
(D.C. Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the
New York Defendants here.
A. There Is No General Jurisdiction Over The New York Defendants Because They
Do Not Reside In The District Of Columbia
Mr. Trump fails to allege any facts to support the Court’s exercise of general jurisdiction
over the New York Defendants. The New York Defendants are the Attorney General of New
York State and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
Compl. at ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff does not allege that either of these New York State officials lives
or maintains their principal place of business in the District of Columbia, nor can he. The
Attorney General and the Commissioner are required to reside in New York to qualify for the
positions they hold. N.Y. Const. Art. V, § 1 (requiring Attorney General to meet the same New
York residency requirement as the Governor); N.Y. Public Officers Law § 3(1) (requiring all
persons holding a civil office to be state residents). And there is no dispute that each of the
New York Defendants works primarily in New York, as is evident from their roles as New
York officials. Compl. at ¶¶ 14-15. Accordingly, they are nonresidents outside the reach of
6

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 13 of 27

this Court’s general jurisdiction. See Lemon, 270 F. Supp. 3d at 137 (relying in part on
Maryland’s residency requirement applicable to the Maryland Attorney General and other
Maryland officials in holding that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in this District);
West v. Holder, 60 F. Supp. 3d 190, 193-94 (D.D.C. 2014) (finding no general jurisdiction over
the governor of Washington because he is not domiciled in D.C.), aff’d sub nom on other
grounds, West v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
B. The Court Has No Specific Jurisdiction Over The Nonresident New York
Defendants Because They Have No Minimum Contacts With This Forum
Mr. Trump has also failed to allege any facts to support the Court’s exercise of specific
jurisdiction over the New York Defendants under D.C.’s long-arm statute. The only provision
of the long-arm statute that could potentially be relevant is the “transacting any business”
provision. See D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(1). But Mr. Trump failed to assert any facts
demonstrating that the nonresident New York Defendants had any contact with this forum that
would constitute “transacting any business” here, or that any such contact forms the basis of his
sole claim against the New York Defendants – a facial First Amendment challenge to a New
York statute enacted by the New York Legislature to govern the treatment of New York tax
information. See Alkanani v. Aegis Def. Servs., LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 13, 22 (D.D.C. 2014),
appeal dismissed, No. 14-7056, 2014 WL 4628907 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2014).
The allegations underlying Mr. Trump’s First Amendment challenge to the TRUST Act
demonstrate that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the New York Defendants. Mr.
Trump’s sole claim against the New York Defendants challenges the constitutionality of the
TRUST Act, a New York law enacted by the New York Legislature to amend New York’s
statutory policies governing New York officials’ treatment of New York tax information. He
asserts that the TRUST Act violated the First Amendment because New York legislators enacted
7

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 14 of 27

the law purportedly to discriminate and retaliate against him for his politics and speech. Compl.
at ¶¶ 74-76. But the New York Defendants “cannot reasonably be expected to assume that one
of the consequences” of the New York Legislature’s enactment of this New York statute would
be to allow Mr. Trump to hale them into federal district court in the District of Columbia rather
than New York to defend the constitutionality of New York’s statute. Marshall v. Labor &
Industries, State of Washington, 89 F. Supp. 2d 4, 10 (D.D.C. 2000) (D.C. court lacked personal
jurisdiction over Washington officials sued for administration of Washington’s worker’s
compensation system); see also Jenkins v. Kerry, 928 F. Supp. 2d 122, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2013)
(D.C. court lacked personal jurisdiction over Florida officials sued for participation in Florida
court proceedings); Fuentes-Fernandez & Co. v. Caballero & Castellanos, 770 F. Supp. 2d
277, 281 (D.D.C. 2011) (D.C. court lacked personal jurisdiction over Louisiana agency sued for
work performed in Louisiana); Coalition on Sensible Transp. Inc. v. Dole, 631 F. Supp. 1382,
1384-85 (D.D.C. 1986) (D.C. court lacked personal jurisdiction over Maryland official sued for
purported improprieties in Maryland agency’s administrative process).
Nor has Mr. Trump alleged any specific actions by the New York Defendants that would
subject them to jurisdiction in D.C. As the complaint acknowledges, the Commissioner is
simply the state official whom the Legislature tasked with administering the TRUST Act’s statelaw provisions about state tax information. The complaint alleges no more than who the
Commissioner is (Compl. at ¶ 15) and what he is required to do under the TRUST Act, which is
to receive a written request from one of the three committees enumerated in the statute and
redact any federal return information before providing responsive material (id. at ¶¶ 52-53, 67).
None of this alleged conduct has even occurred yet since the Committee has not yet submitted
any written request to the Commissioner. The Court plainly lacks personal jurisdiction over the

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 15 of 27

Commissioner where the Commissioner has not yet had any contact with the Committee, and
Mr. Trump thus asserts solely a facial challenge to a New York statue that has not yet been
enforced. In any event, all of the activities that the statute authorizes the Commissioner to
undertake if the Committee sends a written request will occur in New York pursuant to the
Commissioner’s state-law authority over state tax information. Such activity thus does not
provide any basis for this Court to assert personal jurisdiction over the Commissioner.
Moreover, the Commissioner’s statutory authority under the TRUST Act to provide state
tax return information to committees located in D.C. does not constitute the minimum contacts
necessary to provide this Court with personal jurisdiction over the Commissioner. The statute
does not require the Commissioner to deliver any requested materials in person or otherwise
enter this District. At most, the Commissioner will cause information to be delivered to D.C. or
have communications with federal government officials. But such information sharing and
communications are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the “transacting any
business” prong of D.C.’s long-arm statute for three reasons.
First, the “transacting any business” provision applies only where a defendant has
“purposefully engaged in some type of commercial or business-related activity directed” at
residents of D.C. Holder v. Haarmann & Reimer Corp., 779 A.2d 264, 270-71 (D.C. 2001)
(emphasis added); see, e.g., West, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 195 (finding communications between
Governor of Washington and the federal government could not give rise to long-arm
jurisdiction because “contacts falling under the ‘transacting any business provision’ usually
must be commercial.”) (emphasis added); Mouzavires v. Baxter, 434 A.2d 988, 992 (D.C.1981)
(“It is now well settled that the ‘transacting any business’ provision embraces those contractual
activities of a nonresident defendant which cause a consequence here.”) (emphasis added). But

9

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 16 of 27

the Commissioner’s conduct under the TRUST Act in responding to a written request for state
tax return information will not be commercial or business-related activity at all. To the
contrary, the Commissioner’s administration of the TRUST Act will be part of his official
duties to implement the State’s policy choices about the sharing of state tax information with
other government officials. Such noncommercial activity cannot form the basis of personal
jurisdiction under the “transacting any business” provision. See, e.g., Capel v. Capel, 272 F.
Supp. 3d 33, 39 (D.D.C. 2017) (holding family-law contract did not constitute commercial
activity and thus did not provide personal jurisdiction under “transacting any business”
provision).
Second, under the “government contacts” doctrine, a claim of personal jurisdiction in
the District of Columbia cannot be premised solely on a defendant’s contacts with the federal
government. Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio—CBCC v. Applied Indus. Materials
Corp., 35 A.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C. 2012) (quoting Envtl. Research Int'l, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene
Eng'rs, Inc., 355 A.2d 808, 813 (D.C. 1976) (en banc)). As explained by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, the “government contacts” doctrine reflects “the unique character
of the District as the seat of national government” and preserves “the correlative need for
unfettered access to federal departments and agencies for the entire national citizenry.” Envtl.
Research Int’l, 355 A.2d at 813.4 Allowing courts in D.C. “to assert personal jurisdiction over
nonresidents whose sole contact with the District consists of dealing with a federal
instrumentality” would threaten the public’s ability to participate in government freely, and
“threaten to convert the District of Columbia into a national judicial forum.” Id. Under the

For a complete discussion of the history of the “government contacts” doctrine, see Lex Tex
Ltd., Inc. v. Skillman, 579 A.2d 244, 246–47 (D.C. 1990), Naartex, 722 F.2d at 786-87, and Rose
v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368, 1373 (D.C. 1978).
4

10

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 17 of 27

“government contacts” doctrine, none of the information sharing and communications the
Commissioner would allegedly undertake under the TRUST Act if the Committee were to
submit a written request could possibly form a basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Ralls Corp. v. Terna Energy USA Holding Corp., 920 F. Supp. 2d 27, 31 (D.D.C.
2013) (“[S]ubmitting documents to and meeting with government officials in the District does
not establish personal jurisdiction.”); Fuentes-Fernandez, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 281-82 (holding
that under the “government contacts” doctrine contact between federal officials and a Louisiana
state entity did not give rise to personal jurisdiction); Coalition on Sensible Transp., 631 F.
Supp. at 1384-85 (applying government contacts doctrine to an alleged meeting between federal
and Maryland state officials in the District).
Third, the Commissioner’s potential sharing of state-tax information to the Committee
cannot provide personal jurisdiction under the “transacting any business” prong because that
theoretical activity – which has not happened yet – does not actually form the basis of Mr.
Trump’s First Amendment claim against the New York Defendants. As explained, the longarm statute requires “that a claim must arise” from the contacts alleged to constitute transacting
business in this forum – a statutory requirement “closely enforced by the courts.” Coalition on
Sensible Tranp., 631 F. Supp. at 1385. Here, Mr. Trump’s First Amendment claim arises out of
the Legislature’s already completed enactment of the TRUST Act, purportedly in retaliation for
Mr. Trump’s political views and speech. That claim does not arise out of any of the
Commissioner’s hypothetical contacts with the Committee, if the Committee were to send a
request. Accordingly, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Commissioner. See, e.g.,
Brunson v. Kalil & Co., 404 F. Supp. 2d 221, 228-29 (D.D.C. 2005) (holding defendant’s
purported contacts with District did not give rise to legal claim against him and thus did not

11

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 18 of 27

provide personal jurisdiction).
The complaint is similarly threadbare with respect to the Attorney General, who does not
administer or enforce the TRUST Act. Plaintiff merely identifies who the Attorney General is
(Compl. at ¶ 14) and quotes from a few of her statements and tweets that mention him (id. at ¶
36), none of which is alleged to have occurred in D.C. or forms the basis for his sole legal claim
challenging the constitutionality of the TRUST Act. The Court thus lacks personal jurisdiction
over the Attorney General as well.
Mr. Trump cannot use the “transacting any business” clause of the D.C. long-arm statute
to predicate this Court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction over the Attorney General based on her
participation from time to time with other state attorneys general as a plaintiff in litigation in the
District of Columbia because plaintiff’s claims in this action bear no relationship to any such
other litigation. Turner v. Abbott, 53 F. Supp. 3d 61, 67-68 (D.D.C. 2014) (rejecting claim that
participation by Texas Attorney General in unrelated litigation in D.C. subjects him to specific
jurisdiction under D.C.’s long-arm statute). Holding otherwise would violate the minimum
contacts requirement under the Due Process Clause because the Attorney General, “by pursuing
litigation in the District of Columbia,” would not reasonably have anticipated, “as a result,
being pulled into this forum to litigate entirely unrelated claims.” Id. at 68 (citing Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 480 (1985)).
In any event, any attempt by Plaintiff to gin up facts in an attempt establish minimum
contacts between the Attorney General and the District of Columbia would be futile because
she enjoys immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.5

Pursuant to the Court’s order (ECF No. 25), this motion is limited to the New York
Defendants’ personal jurisdiction and venue defenses, with all other defenses, including an
5

12

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 19 of 27

Finally, considerations of federalism and state sovereignty, implicated here because the
New York Defendants are sued in their official capacities, provide further bases for finding that
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the New York Defendants would be unreasonable
under the Due Process Clause. “Federalism and state sovereignty are an essential part of the
constraints that due process imposes upon personal jurisdiction,” and they prevent a federal
district court from exercising personal jurisdiction “over a nonresident state official.” Stroman
Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 488 (5th Cir. 2008). “The sovereignty of each State . . .
implie[s] a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States—a limitation express or
implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.”
World–Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 293. Accordingly, “the reasonableness of asserting
jurisdiction over [a] defendant must be assessed in the context of our federal system of
government.” Id. (citation omitted). In that way, due process “act[s] as an instrument of
interstate federalism.” Id. at 294. “The effect of holding that a federal district court in the

immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment, preserved. Nevertheless, in the event that
Plaintiff contends in opposition to this motion that he needs to conduct jurisdictional discovery
relating to the Attorney General, the Court can and should consider her Eleventh Amendment
immunity defense in determining whether such discovery would be futile. The basis for the
Eleventh Amendment defense is that a suit against state officials sued in their official capacities
“is no different from a suit against the State itself.” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Cornish v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 198, 205 (D.D.C. 2012). The State
is not susceptible to suit in federal court without a valid abrogation or waiver of its Eleventh
Amendment immunity, see U.S. Const. amend. XI; Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v.
Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001), and there has been neither Congressional abrogation of the
states’ sovereign immunity for actions such as this brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see
Will, 491 U.S. at 71; Ali v. District of Columbia, 278 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2002), nor waiver by
the State of New York of its Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought in federal court.
Nor does Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Attorney General fit
into the “narrow exception” to sovereign immunity created by the Ex Parte Young doctrine
because she is not specifically charged with the duty to enforce the TRUST Act and has no other
connection with enforcement of the statute. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908);
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 76 (1996).
13

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 20 of 27

[District of Columbia] had personal jurisdiction over a nonresident state official would create an
avenue for challenging the validity of one state’s laws in courts located in another state.”
Stroman, 513 F.3d at 488. Such a practice – which is precisely what Mr. Trump seeks to do
here – “would greatly diminish the independence of the states” and improperly offend basic
principles of federalism and interstate sovereignty. See PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F.
Supp. 2d 1179, 1189 n.8 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (requiring one state to submit to the long-arm
jurisdiction of another state “constitutes an extreme impingement on state sovereignty”).
This Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident New York
Defendants here would also raise the specter of state officials having to defend their own states’
laws “in courts throughout the nation,” rather than in the “local state or federal courts” that
possess “special expertise” in such matters. Stroman, 513 F.3d at 487. For example, prior to
enactment of the TRUST Act, New York’s tax laws already authorized the sharing of state tax
information with federal, state, and local government officials under certain circumstances
See, e.g., N.Y. Tax Law § 697(f), (g) (authorizing the Commissioner to share state tax
information with federal, state, and city tax officials for tax purposes on written request). And
other States likewise authorize their tax officials to share state tax information with certain
officials from the federal government or other States’ governments under statutorily enumerated
circumstances. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-2003(B)(5)(a)-(c); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105259(b)(3). If the New York Defendants must defend against Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge
to a New York tax-information sharing statute in a forum outside New York, then other States’
officials may soon be haled into forums outside of their States to defend against similar
challenges to the enactment or enforcement of their statutes. Such lawsuits would “greatly
diminish the independence of the states.” Stroman, 513 F.3d at 488; cf. Cameron v.

14

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 21 of 27

Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“By naming high government officials
as defendants, a plaintiff could bring a suit here that properly should be pursued elsewhere.”).
Simply put, nothing under the TRUST Act creates any contact between the New York
Defendants and D.C. “such that [they] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in
this District, World– Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, or supports a finding that they
“purposefully avail[ed] [themselves] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws,” Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253.
Moreover, it would be unreasonable under the Due Process Clause and basic principles of
comity and federalism to require the New York Defendants to defend the constitutionality of
the TRUST Act in a non-New York forum. Because there is no general or specific personal
jurisdiction over the New York Defendants, the Court should grant their motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
C. Alternatively, D.C.’s Personal Jurisdiction Provisions Do Not Apply To State
Officials Sued In Their Official Capacities
A suit against state officials sued in their official capacities “is no different from a suit
against the State itself.” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Cornish
v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 198, 205 (D.D.C. 2012). It is an open question in this Circuit
whether this is true for purposes of analyzing personal jurisdiction. Ferrara, 54 F.3d at 832
(“We need not determine whether a State official sued in his official capacity should be treated
as if he were the State for jurisdictional purposes . . . .”); West, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 195 (noting
whether the holding in Will applies for purposes of a personal jurisdiction analysis “is
uncertain”) (citing Ferrara). But if this action is treated as a suit against New York State, then
there can be no personal jurisdiction over the New York Defendants because D.C.’s personal
jurisdiction provisions do not apply.
15

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 22 of 27

The D.C. personal jurisdiction provisions authorize the exercise of jurisdiction only over
“persons,” which is defined as including “an individual, his executor, administrator, or other
personal representative, or a corporation, partnership, association, or any other legal or
commercial entity, whether or not a citizen or domiciliary of the District of Columbia and
whether or not organized under the laws of the District of Columbia.” D.C. Code § 13-421. The
D.C. Circuit has expressly held that a State does not qualify as a “person” under this statutory
definition. Ferrara, 54 F.3d at 831-32 (holding the text of D.C. Code § 13-421 “affirmatively
implies that a State is not a ‘person’ for its purpose”); West, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 195 (holding state
officials sued in their official capacities do not fall under D.C.’s long-arm statute) (citing
Ferrara); Moore v. Motz, 437 F. Supp. 2d 88, 94 (D.D.C. 2006) (“The District of Columbia
long-arm statute does not authorize personal jurisdiction over state governments, because states
are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of the statute.”) (citing Ferrara).
Accordingly, to the extent the Court deems this action to be against the State of New
York under Will, there is no need for any “minimum contacts” analysis to hold the New York
Defendants should be dismissed because D.C. law provides no statutory basis for the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over them.
II.

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A PROPER VENUE
The District of Columbia is an improper venue for this lawsuit. The plaintiff bears the

burden of proving that venue is proper, see Myers v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 915 F.Supp.2d 136, 144
(D.D.C. 2013), because “it is the plaintiff’s obligation to institute the action in a permissible
forum,” McCain v. Bank of America, 13 F. Supp. 3d 45, 51 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Williams v.
GEICO Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58, 62 (D.D.C. 2011)). In determining whether a venue is
proper, “a court should 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
16

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 23 of 27

plaintiff.” Myers, 915 F. Supp. 2d at 144 (citing Hunter v. Johanns, 517 F. Supp. 2d 340, 343
(D.D.C. 2007)). The court need not, however, accept a 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).
The general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides three bases for venue. First,
venue is proper in a “judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). This provision
does not provide for venue here because it is beyond dispute that the New York Defendants do
not reside in this District as they are required by law to reside in New York. See, supra, at 6-7.
Second, venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject
of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2). This provision also does not provide for
venue in this District because the complaint alleges no events or omissions by the New York
Defendants that give rise to Mr. Trump’s First Amendment claim and that took place in the
District of Columbia. See, supra, at 7-9. To the contrary, Mr. Trump alleges that the purported
acts of “retaliation” and “discrimination” were taken by members of the New York Legislature
in New York. Compl. at ¶¶ 35-59. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to rely for venue purposes
on allegations about the conduct of, and statements by, House and Committee members taking
place in D.C. (Compl. at ¶¶ 26-34), those allegations have nothing to do with the enactment of
the TRUST Act. And in any event, inquiries into legislative motive or purpose have no place in
deciding the merits of a First Amendment challenge. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421
U.S. 491, 508 (1975); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383 (1968) (cautioning that
“[i]nquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter” in a First
Amendment challenge to a law prohibiting the destruction of a draft card). “It is a familiar

17

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 24 of 27

principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional
statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”6 O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 383.
Third, if no other district is appropriate, venue is proper in “any judicial district in which
any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3). Here, there is another district that would clearly be appropriate to hear
this matter—the Southern District of New York. The New York Defendants work and reside in
New York, and the Commissioner will review returns, redact information, and respond to any
requests made under the TRUST Act in New York. The Committee, while not resident in New
York, is absolutely immune from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause based on the holding
in Eastland, see Response of the Committee on Ways & Means to Emergency Application,
(ECF No. 14), and in any event, the only claim against the Committee in this action – Count I –
is not ripe, see July 29, 2019 Transcript at 11-12 (noting “a significant ripeness concern”).
Plaintiff’s decision to name the Committee as a defendant in the absence of any written request
from the Committee under the TRUST Act thus does not present any barrier to transferring this
action to the Southern District of New York. See Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 25657 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (dismissing federal officials resident in D.C. and transferring action to the
Southern District of Indiana). As the D.C. Circuit warned in Cameron: “Courts in this circuit

6

Even in other cases where legislative motive is relevant to the merits of a claim, courts have
observed that “it is the motivation of the entire legislature, not the motivation of a handful of
voluble members . . . that is relevant.” S.C. Edu. Ass’n v. Campbell, 883 F.2d 1251, 1262 (4th
Cir. 1989) (citing Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845)); see also Murphy v. Empire of Am.,
FSA, 746 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding that isolated remarks in legislative debate are
entitled to little or no weight); In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908, 912 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Stray
comments by individual legislators, not otherwise supported by statutory language or committee
reports, cannot be attributed to the full body that voted on the bill. The opposite inference is far
more likely.”).
18

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 25 of 27

must examine challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue carefully to guard against the
danger that a plaintiff might manufacture venue in the District of Columbia. By naming high
government officials as defendants, a plaintiff could bring a suit here that properly should be
pursued elsewhere.” Id. at 256.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court shall dismiss an action filed in an improper
venue or, if it is “in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district ... in which it could
have been brought.” “The decision whether a transfer or a dismissal is in the interest of justice .
. . rests within the sound discretion of the district court.” Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt,
722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C. Cir. 1983). If the Court does not dismiss the New York Defendants
for lack of personal jurisdiction or dismiss the case for improper venue, it should at a minimum
transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. Stroman, 513 F.3d at 487 (noting that
state officials should not have to defend attempts to enforce their own states’ laws “in courts
throughout the nation,” rather than in the “local state or federal courts”).

19

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 26 of 27

CONCLUSION
The Court should grant the New York Defendants’ motion and issue an order: (i)
dismissing them from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction; (ii) dismissing the case based
on improper venue; or (iii) at the very least transferring this case to the Southern District of New
York.
Dated:

New York, New York
August 9, 2019
LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General of the State of New York
By:

/s/ Andrew Amer
Andrew Amer
Special Litigation Counsel
28 Liberty Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 416-6127
Andrew.amer@ag.ny.gov
Attorney for Defendants Letitia James, in her
official capacity, and Michael R. Schmidt, in
his official capacity

20

 Case 1:19-cv-02173-CJN Document 26-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 27 of 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 9, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be filed via
this Court’s CM/ECF system, which I understand caused service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Andrew Amer
Andrew Amer