Frias v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Filing 32

ORDER Granting 20 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue by Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014) [Transferred from cand on 10/22/2014.]

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DEANNA FRIAS, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 14-cv-03146-TEH ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Defendants. 9 On September 15, 2014, Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Company and TriNet 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Employee Benefit Insurance Plan filed a motion to transfer this case from the Northern 12 District of California to the District of Arizona. Mot. (Docket No. 20). Plaintiff filed her 13 opposition (Docket No. 23) on September 29, 2014, and Defendants replied on October 6, 14 2014 (Docket No. 26). After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court finds further 15 argument unnecessary, VACATES the hearing on the motion scheduled for October 27, 16 2014, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer venue for the reasons listed below. 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Deanna Frias was employed by TriNet Group, Inc. (“TriNet”) as a Service 20 Technician in Arizona. Compl. ¶ 3 (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff was at all relevant times, and 21 to this Court’s knowledge remains, a resident of Maricopa County in Arizona. Id. ¶ 3. 22 Aetna is a corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut, but 23 is authorized to transact and does transact business in the Northern District of California. 24 Id. ¶ 8. TriNet is a corporation with offices nationwide, including Arizona, but with its 25 principle place of business in San Leandro, California. Id. ¶ 9; Ex. G to Valentine Decl. 26 (Docket No. 21-7). 27 28 TriNet established and maintained an employee welfare benefit plan issued by Aetna with an effective date of October 1, 2010 (“the LTD Plan”). Compl. ¶¶ 3-6. 1 Plaintiff was a participant in the LTD Plan. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that while covered 2 under the Plan, she suffered from a disability due to multiple sclerosis, Ehlers Danlos 3 Syndrome, and other conditions. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff’s medical leave commenced on or 4 about March 17, 2010. Id. ¶ 14. She submitted a claim to Aetna for disability benefits and 5 received benefits from Aetna until on or about August 22, 2013, at which point Aetna 6 terminated her benefits. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff’s records, submitted on behalf of her claim for benefits and provided to the 8 Court by Defendants, indicate that she was treated by numerous physicians and specialists 9 in Arizona. Ex. B to Valentine Decl. (Docket No. 21-2). Plaintiff applied for and received 10 benefits from the Arizona office of the Social Security Administration. Ex. D to Valentine 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 Decl. (Docket No. 21-4). Plaintiff’s claim was administered outside of California. Exs. C 12 & F to Valentine Decl. (Docket Nos. 21-3, 21-6). 13 Because Defendants can be found within the Northern District of California, 14 Plaintiff filed her ERISA action in this Court. Compl. ¶ 10; see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) 15 (allowing plaintiffs to bring an ERISA action in any district where the defendant may be 16 found). Defendants do not dispute that they can be found in the Northern District of 17 California, and that venue is therefore proper in this District; instead, Defendants move the 18 Court to transfer these proceedings to the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), 19 for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. Mot.; Reply at 1 20 (Docket No. 26). 21 22 23 LEGAL STANDARD Under ERISA, a plaintiff may bring an action in any federal district where: (1) the 24 plan is administered; (2) the breach took place; (3) the defendant resides; or (4) the 25 defendant may be found. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). 26 Nonetheless, a defendant can move for a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 27 1404(a). This statute provides, in relevant part, that “[f]or the convenience of parties and 28 witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any 2 1 other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 2 Once it is established that a venue is appropriate in an alternative district, the district court 3 weighs eight factors in determining whether to transfer venue: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of 4 forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience of witnesses; (4) the ease of 5 access to the evidence; (5) the familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (6) the 6 feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and 7 (8) the relative court congestion and the time of trial in each forum. Jones v. GNC 8 Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for transfer lies within the 9 broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis. Id. at 498. The party seeking transfer bears the burden of persuasion. Commodity Futures 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). 12 13 14 15 16 DISCUSSION A. Venue is proper in both the Northern District of California and the District of Arizona. Plaintiff is correct that this case is properly filed in the Northern District of 17 California because Defendants can be found here. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). In fact, 18 Defendants do not dispute this. Reply at 1. However, Defendants are similarly correct that 19 this case could also have been filed in the District of Arizona, as Defendants can be found 20 in that District. See Varsic v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Centr. Dist. of Cal., 607 F.2d 245, 248 (9th 21 Cir. 1979) (stating that a defendant is “found” in any district where personal jurisdiction 22 can be asserted, i.e., where defendant’s activities are “substantial” or “continuous and 23 systematic”). Regarding TriNet, the company has an office in Phoenix, Arizona, where 24 Plaintiff was employed. Compl. ¶ 3; Ex. G to Valentine Decl. (Docket No. 21-7). TriNet 25 can therefore be “found” in the District of Arizona. See Couvrett v. Couvrett, No. 12- 26 2771, 2013 WL 2898531, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) (finding a branch office to be 27 sufficient to establish that there was personal jurisdiction over defendants in that district). 28 Regarding Aetna, Plaintiff does not dispute that the insurance company regularly conducts 3 1 business nationwide, including in Arizona, and can therefore be “found” in the District of 2 Arizona. Opp’n at 7 (“Plaintiff does not dispute that the action could have also been 3 brought in Arizona.”). 4 Venue is additionally proper in Arizona because that is where the breach took place. 5 See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) (allowing an ERISA action to be brought where the breach 6 took place). Because Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona, she would have received benefits in 7 that state, and therefore the alleged breach took place in the District of Arizona. See Teets 8 v. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co., No. 2:14-1360, 2014 WL 4187306, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 9 Aug. 21, 2014) (“Courts liberally construe these provisions to find that a breach occurs 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 where the plan participant expects to receive benefits.”). Consequently, venue is proper in both the Northern District of California and the District of Arizona on multiple grounds. 13 14 15 16 B. Transfer is granted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. Because venue is proper in both the Northern District of California and the District 17 of Arizona, Defendants have the burden of persuading the Court that this case should be 18 transferred to the District of Arizona for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and 19 in the interest of justice. Jones, 211 F.3d at 495; Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 20 611 F.2d at 279. After reviewing the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Defendants 21 have met their burden, and that this case should therefore be transferred to the District of 22 Arizona, for the following reasons. 23 24 1. Plaintiff’s choice of forum holds only minimal weight because she is not a resident 25 of California and the operative facts of this case occurred outside of this District. 26 Generally, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is rarely disturbed. STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, 27 Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551, 1555-56 (N.D. Cal. 1988). However, where the “operative facts 28 have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject 4 matter, [plaintiff’s] choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 2 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). In fact, “[t]his is particularly true where plaintiff is not a 3 resident of the judicial district where he has instituted suit.” Maurey v. University of S. 4 Cal., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4276, *5 (N.D. Cal. March 26, 1998). The operative facts of 5 this case occurred outside of the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is a resident of 6 Arizona, worked in Arizona, filed for and would have received benefits in Arizona. 7 Additionally, the physicians retained by Aetna to review Plaintiff’s claim were located in 8 Massachusetts, Florida, New York, and Maryland; Aetna letters were sent from Lexington, 9 Kentucky; and the claim personnel were located in Maine and Florida. Compl. ¶ 3; Exs. E 10 & F to Chandler Decl. (Docket No. 24-1). All of these facts suggest that Plaintiff’s choice 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 of forum should be afforded only minimal consideration. 12 Conversely, Plaintiff contends that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded greater 13 weight in an ERISA action than in other cases. Opp’n at 6 (citing Bd. of Trs., Sheet Metal 14 Workers Nat. Fund v. Baylor Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1253, 1256- 15 57 (E.D. Va. 1988)). However, Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers National Fund is 16 inapposite, and has in fact been distinguished by another court in this district when it was 17 cited by Plaintiff’s counsel in a similar action. See Guy v. Hartford Life Group Ins. Co., 18 No. 11-3453, 2011 WL 5525965, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). In Guy, the court 19 explained that the action in Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers National Fund was 20 brought in the plaintiff’s home forum, unlike in both Guy and the present case, and that the 21 Eastern District of Virginia even noted that “a plaintiff’s choice of his home forum for 22 venue purposes is given greater weight than a plaintiff’s choice of a foreign forum.” Id. 23 (quoting Bd. of Trs., Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Fund, 702 F. Supp. at 1256). The Eastern 24 District of Virginia additionally stated that “the plaintiff’s choice is entitled to less weight 25 where there is little to connect the chosen forum with the cause of action,” as is true here. 26 Bd. of Trs., Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Fund, 702 F. Supp. at 1256. Further, ERISA 27 disputes are regularly transferred from one court to another, despite a plaintiff’s choice of 28 5 1 forum, which is not an abuse of discretion when other factors favor transfer. Jacobson v. 2 Hughes Aircraft Co., 105 F.3d 1288, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). 3 Because Plaintiff does not reside in California and none of the operative events took 4 place in California, the Court affords Plaintiff’s choice of forum only minimal 5 consideration. 6 7 8 9 2. The convenience of the parties is a neutral factor. Defendants and Plaintiff offer offsetting arguments regarding whether transfer best serves the convenience of the parties. Defendants contend that transfer to the District of Arizona would be more convenient for Plaintiff because she resides in that district. Mot. at 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 6; Reply at 6. This argument has special merit because Plaintiff is allegedly disabled, and 12 her convenience is therefore “particularly relevant.” See Joyner v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13 11-6005, 2012 WL 92290, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2012) (“[The location of the plaintiff] is 14 particularly relevant considering plaintiff alleges she is physically disabled due to cervical 15 spine degenerative joint disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.”). The Court does note, 16 however, that the burden on Plaintiff may be lessened where she is permitted to appear by 17 telephone when necessary. See Opp’n at 9. Conversely, Plaintiff argues that retaining the 18 case in the Northern District of California would be more convenient for Defendants 19 because the Plan Sponsor and Administrator are headquartered here. Opp’n at 8. 20 The fact that the parties have chosen California lawyers is of no consequence. Guy, 21 2011 WL 5525965 at *3; In re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 22 2003) (“The factor of ‘location of counsel’ is irrelevant and improper for consideration in 23 determining the question of the transfer of venue.”). This is exceedingly true where, as in 24 this case, Plaintiff’s counsel litigates cases in states throughout the country, and has an 25 office located nearly equidistant from the courthouses for the District of Arizona and the 26 Northern District of California. See October 14, 2014 Order Granting Request for Judicial 27 Notice (Docket No. 30); Exs. B-H to Valentine Decl. (Docket Nos. 27-2 to 27-8). The 28 6 1 Court is unconvinced that Plaintiff’s counsel cannot prosecute this case in Arizona where 2 they have shown an ability to do so in the past. 3 4 Because the parties’ arguments are offsetting, and the location of counsel is irrelevant, the Court finds that the convenience of the parties is a neutral factor. 5 6 7 3. The convenience of witnesses weighs in favor of transfer. “The relative convenience to the witnesses is often recognized as the most 8 important factor to be considered in ruling on a motion under § 1404(a).” Metz v. U.S. Life 9 Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 Defendants argue that transfer best serves the convenience of witnesses because United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff received medical treatment in Arizona, was employed in Arizona, was subject to 12 surveillance in Arizona, and was denied plan benefits in Arizona. Mot. at 6. Further, any 13 other potential witnesses, such as claims personnel and the doctors that reviewed 14 Plaintiff’s case, would be located in places other than the Northern District of California. 15 Compl. ¶ 3; Exs. E & F to Chandler Decl. (Docket No. 24-1). 16 Plaintiff responds that Defendants’ argument for the convenience of the witnesses 17 lacks merit because of the nature of the adjudication involved in ERISA actions. Opp’n at 18 9-10. While Plaintiff is correct that ERISA cases are “decided mainly” on the 19 administrative record, should any discovery become necessary or any witnesses need to be 20 called, such discovery would come from Arizona. Evaluating this same argument in an 21 analogous case, another court in this District found that because another forum was the 22 location of both the plaintiff and the operative facts, the convenience of the witnesses was 23 “neutral at best,” if not “weigh[ing] in favor of granting the Motion to Transfer.” M.K. v. 24 Visa Cigna Network POS Plan, No. 12-4652, 2013 WL 2146609, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 25 2013). This Court agrees with the decision in Visa Cigna and finds that the convenience of 26 witnesses weighs in favor of transfer because of the potential for additional discovery. 27 28 7 1 4. The ease of access to evidence is a neutral factor. 2 Aside from witness testimony and discovery, which the Court has determined 3 weighs slightly in favor of transfer, the ease of access to evidence is a neutral factor in this 4 case. As Plaintiff explains, the pertinent evidence in this action will likely be contained in 5 the Plaintiff’s claim file, which is in Defendants’ possession and would be provided to 6 Plaintiff with indistinguishable levels of inconvenience regardless of the district in which 7 this case is litigated. Opp’n at 11. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 5. The forums’ familiarity with the applicable law and the feasibility of conslidation are neutral factors. ERISA is a federal statute. Consequently, the District of Arizona and the Northern 12 District of California are equally familiar with the applicable law in this case, rendering 13 this factor neutral. See David v. Alphin, No. 06-4763, 2007 WL 39400, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 14 Jan. 4, 2007) (“This is an ERISA action which will be decided exclusively under federal 15 law regardless of where it is heard.”). 16 17 Similarly, because there are no related claims, the feasibility of consolidation is irrelevant, and is therefore a neutral factor. 18 19 20 6. Local interest in the controversy weighs in favor of transfer. Defendants contend that Arizona has a strong interest in addressing the rights of its 21 citizens claiming insurance benefits. Mot. at 7 (citing Coronel v. GEICO Ins. Agency, Inc., 22 No. 12-795, 2013 WL 3270574, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2013) (“Arizona has a great 23 interest in protecting its citizens from the unreasonable actions of an insurer.”)). 24 Additionally, Arizona has an especially strong local interest in this case, Defendants argue, 25 because Plaintiff is an Arizona resident who was employed in Arizona, received medical 26 treatment in Arizona, was denied disability payments in Arizona, and was allegedly 27 harmed in Arizona. Reply at 9-10. Plaintiff responds that at least one of the Defendants 28 8 1 resides in California, and that the other does business here, giving California a local 2 interest in this litigation. Opp’n at 11. 3 In finding that this factor weighs in favor of transfer, the Court does not deny 4 California’s interest in litigation involving California-based defendants. However, in light 5 of the much more substantial ties between the state of Arizona and the operative facts of 6 this case, this Court finds that California’s interest in this matter is greatly outweighed by 7 that of Arizona. See Visa Cigna Network POS Plan, 2013 WL 2146609, at *4 (finding that 8 Utah had “more of an interest” in the controversy than the Northern District of California 9 because the plaintiff resided, worked, and received medical treatment in Utah, and because the only connection to the Northern District of California was that the defendant was 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 headquartered here). 12 13 14 7. Relative court congestion weighs in favor of transfer. “The key inquiry in docket congestion is whether a trial may be speedier in another 15 court because of its less crowded docket.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 16 Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1196 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). This 17 factor turns on whether “efficient and expeditious administration of justice would be 18 furthered” by transfer. Sherar v. Harless, 561 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1977). However, 19 “Administrative considerations such as docket congestion are given little weight in this 20 circuit in assessing the propriety of a § 1404(a) transfer.” Allstar Marketing Group, LLC v. 21 Your Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 22 Defendants argue that court congestion weighs in favor of transfer because the 23 Northern District of California has nearly twice as many pending cases as the District of 24 Arizona. Reply at 9. This fact has been judicially noticed by the Court. See October 14, 25 2014 Order. Plaintiff appears to concede that the Northern District of California is more 26 congested than that of Arizona, but contends that this factor should be given little weight 27 because transfer would require the parties to retain new counsel, and because it is 28 outweighed by the importance of Plaintiff’s choice of forum and the convenience of the 9 1 parties. See Opp’n at 12. The Court has already dismissed these arguments above. 2 Further, while Plaintiff cites to Costco Wholesale Corporation to argue that docket 3 congestion should not be considered where parties will have to retain new counsel, she 4 ignores the context of that holding. In that case, the plaintiff had filed a motion for partial 5 summary judgment that was pending during the motion to transfer. Costco Wholesale 6 Corporation, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 1196. Consequently, if the case had been transferred, “the 7 parties [would] have [had] to rehash the summary judgment motion [in the new district] 8 and bring local counsel up to speed on the issues.” Id. The same concern is not present in 9 this case, as there are no pending motions, and Plaintiff’s counsel has litigated cases in 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Arizona in the past. However, Plaintiff is correct that the administrative concern of docket congestion is 12 given only minimal weight in this District. Opp’n at 12 (citing Allstar Marketing Group, 13 LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d at 1134). Nonetheless, what little weight such a consideration 14 should be given in this case weighs in favor of transfer. 15 16 17 CONCLUSION Having considered the written submissions of the parties, and finding that a balance 18 of the eight Jones factors weighs in favor of transferring this case to the District of 19 Arizona, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing on this motion scheduled for October 20 27, 2014, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer this case to the District of Arizona. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: 10/21/14 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 26 27 28 10

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?