Johnson et al v. The United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-03312-PAB
ERICA JOHNSON,
LEAH OLSZEWSKI, and
ELIZABETH KNIGHT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Transfer of Venue
[Docket No. 9]. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Plaintiffs bring this case under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b)(1), 2761 et seq. Docket No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 4. Two of the plaintiffs are residents
of Colorado and one is a resident of Washington. Id. at 2, ¶¶ 1-3. The complaint
alleges tortious conduct by senior officials of the United States Department of Defense.
Id. at 1-2. The parties agree that these officials, at the time of the alleged tortious
conduct, were located within the Eastern District of Virginia. Docket No. 9 at 1-2, ¶ 2.
An FTCA claim may be properly brought in either the judicial district “where all
the plaintiffs reside” or the judicial district “where the act or omission occurred.”
Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 12 n.25 (1962). As one of the plaintiffs does not
Case No. 1:24-cv-03312-PAB Document 10 filed 04/16/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
reside within the District of Colorado, Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 3, and the relevant acts or
omissions are not alleged to have taken place in Colorado, the Court finds that the
District of Colorado is not the proper venue for this case.
When venue does not lie in the district in which the case has been filed, a district
court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district . . . in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The parties
agree that the case could originally have been brought in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia because the alleged tortious conduct occurred
within that district and the FTCA provides for venue in the district in which the tortious
conduct occurred. Docket No. 9 at 2-3, ¶¶ 3-6. The parties also agree that it is in the
interest of justice to transfer the case because Virginia law applies to the claim and
because the litigation is in an early stage, with no response to the complaint having yet
been filed, no scheduling order entered, and no trial date having been set. Id. at 3, ¶ 6.
The Court agrees and will order that the case be transferred to the Eastern District of
Virginia.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Transfer of Venue [Docket No. 9] is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It is further
Case No. 1:24-cv-03312-PAB Document 10 filed 04/16/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
ORDERED that the United States’ April 2, 2025 deadline to answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint is STAYED until such time as that deadline is reset by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
DATED April 16, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
__________________________
Case No. 1:24-cv-03312-PAB Document 10 filed 04/16/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3