Judge Moves FDA Case From Texas Court, Deepening Venue Showdown

A nicotine pouch manufacturer’s lawsuit against the FDA should be immediately sent to a North Carolina court, a Texas federal judge ruled, despite a new local rule that pauses case transfers.

US District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth on Monday said Fontem US LLC’s case is better-suited to be heard in the Middle District of North Carolina, where the manufacturer’s headquarters is located. Government attorneys on March 19 had asked the litigation be sent there, or to federal courts in Washington, DC, or Maryland. Fontem opposed that request.

The dispute is the latest in a venue tug-of-war as Pittman has repeatedly moved to jettison cases lacking a strong connection to his area, though he’s faced multiple Fifth Circuit reversals.

Pittman said the lawsuit’s sole connection to the Northern District of Texas’ Fort Worth division is a convenience store that sells the company’s products. Lucas Seiler, the spokesperson for ITG Brands—Fontem’s US affiliate—said they “respectfully disagree” with the court’s ruling and are evaluating next steps.

The Northern District of Texas includes smaller divisions such as Pittman’s Fort Worth courthouse, where he and Chief Judge Reed O’Connor—both appointed by Republican presidents—hear 90% of all civil lawsuits. Some conservative groups and business interests have been accused of “judge shopping” in the district, or filing in certain court divisions with the hope of getting a case assigned to an apparently friendly judge.

Fontem alleges that the Food and Drug Administration violated federal law by issuing a “refuse to file” letter over its premarket tobacco application for certain subset of a line of nicotine pouch products. Such letters prevent marketing applications from entering the substantive evaluation phase, as the FDA found that the application is incomplete and lacks necessary information for review.

“Here, there is no unique or particular impact felt in the Northern District of Texas and little if any of the events surrounding the FDA’s intermediate decision have occurred here,” Pittman said in his order. He also said the North Carolina court docket “generally” isn’t as busy that in North Texas.

Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee, has previously taken issue with entities suing in his court despite having little connection to Fort Worth or the surrounding area. He was repeatedly reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2024 over his attempts to transfer to Washington a challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s $8 cap on fees for late payments on credit card bills. Last year he added a requirement that parties before him show there’s an “obvious factual nexus” to his division.

Soon after the CFPB case, the Northern District of Texas adopted a local rule that pauses orders to transfer cases out of the district for 21 days, unless all parties agree to the move.

But Pittman on Monday said he “questions the legitimacy and practicality” of that requirement, and ordered the case immediately transferred.

“In terms of legitimacy, the ostensible reason behind the Rule is to allow the de facto appellate review of a district court’s decision to transfer a case to another circuit,” he said. “But jurisdiction of federal courts to exercise appellate review is established by Congress and the United States Supreme Court—not the district courts, or even learned circuit courts, through local rules.”

The rule “forces district court judges to prioritize certain filings over others,” he added.

If motions for a temporary restraining order and to transfer venue are filed at the same time, a judge may have to rule on the emergency relief “notwithstanding a clearly improper venue” because of the waiting period, he said.

Pittman said the stay requirement is “inconsistent” with another local rule that says judges can “direct the parties to proceed in any manner that the judge deems just and expeditious.”

“Moreover, the Rule necessarily infringes on a district court’s charge to manage its own docket,” he added.

Once a case is accepted by a court, it’s up to the receiving court to decide whether it should be transferred back. If Fontem’s attorneys with Latham & Watkins want to appeal Pittman’s order to the Fifth Circuit, they would first have to ask the North Carolina court to return the litigation to Texas.

The case is Fontem US v. FDA, N.D. Tex., No. 4:26-cv-00322, 3/23/26.