Ennis v. Aetna Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
37
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 33 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 31 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MARK ENNIS,
Plaintiff,
8
9
Case No. 3:18-cv-01617-WHO
v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 31, 33
12
13
14
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Mark Ennis became injured while covered under an employer-provided disability
15
plan. He was denied long-term disability coverage and filed an action in this court under the
16
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Defendants Aetna Life Insurance
17
Company (“Aetna”) and the TriNet Group, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan (“the Plan”) now move
18
to transfer the case to Georgia, where Ennis lived and received treatment. Their motion is
19
DENIED because Ennis’s choice of forum is entitled to some deference and they have not shown
20
that the section 1404(a) factors favor transfer.
21
BACKGROUND
22
Ennis is a resident of Georgia. Declaration of Mark Ennis (“Ennis Decl.”) [Dkt. No. 34-2]
23
¶ 3. For his job as a Talent Acquisition Specialist for California-based DayNine Consulting, Ennis
24
worked with companies all over the country, including California. Id. ¶¶ 3–4.
25
Ennis was covered by the Plan, which was insured by Aetna. Id. ¶ 5; Complaint
26
(“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 12; Declaration of Adam Garcia (“Garcia Decl.”) [Dkt. No. 31-6] Ex.
27
D. TriNet Group, Inc. (“TriNet”) has its principal place of business in San Leandro, CA, and
28
Aetna has its principal place of business in Hartford, CT. Declaration of Phillip Bather (“Bather
1
Decl.”) [Dkt. No. 34-1] Exs. A, B. The documents Ennis received regarding the Plan listed Aetna
2
as the insurer and TriNet as the administrator. Id. Ex. A. The “Agent for Service of Legal
3
Process” was listed at TriNet’s office in San Leandro. Id.
4
Ennis alleges that he became disabled according to the Plan’s definition in April 2016.
5
Compl. ¶ 12. He was treated by doctors in Georgia. Garcia Decl. Ex. C. After being denied
6
disability benefits in October 2016, he filed an appeal with Aetna. Garcia Decl. Ex. D. Aetna
7
denied his appeal from its Connecticut offices in December 2017. Id. On March 14, 2018 he filed
8
a complaint against Aetna and the Plan under ERISA. Defendants filed this motion to transfer
9
venue to the Northern District of Georgia on August 1, 2018, and I heard argument on September
10
12, 2018. Mot. [Dkt. No. 31-4] 1.
LEGAL STANDARD
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
I. VENUE
Venue in federal courts is governed by statute. M.K. v. Visa Cigna Network Pos Plan, 12-
14
CV-04652-LHK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68630, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 14, 2013); see Leroy v.
15
Great Western United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 181 (1979). Under ERISA, venue is proper (1) where
16
the plan is administered, (2) where the breach occurred, and (3) where a defendant resides or may
17
be found. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e). The Ninth Circuit held that Congress “intended to expand, rather
18
than restrict, the range of permissible venue locations” in order to provide ERISA plaintiffs with
19
easy access to the courts. Varsic v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Of Calif., 607 F.2d 245, 247–
20
48 (9th Cir. 1979).
21
II. TRANSFER
22
A court may transfer an action to another district: (1) for the convenience of the parties,
23
(2) for the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) in the interest of justice, provided that the action
24
might have been brought in the transferee court. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Lee v. Lockheed Martin
25
Corp., No. 03-cv-1533-SI, 2003 WL 22159053, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2003). The Ninth
26
Circuit requires that courts consider a variety of factors in determining whether to transfer an
27
action. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal Co.
28
v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The relevant factors are:
2
(1) plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of
the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with
the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local
interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in
each forum.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Barnes & Noble v. LSI Corp., 823 F.Supp.2d 980, 993 (N.D.Cal.2011) (Chen, J.).
The burden is on the party seeking transfer to show that when these factors are applied, the
balance of convenience clearly favors transfer. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage,
611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). It is not enough for a defendant to merely show that it prefers
another forum, and transfer will also not be allowed if the result is merely to shift the
inconvenience from one party to another. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645–46 (1964).
DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
I. MOTION TO TRANSFER
Defendants move to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia under section
13
14
15
16
17
18
1404(a). They do not dispute that venue is proper in this district,” 1 nor does Ennis dispute that he
could have brought this case in Georgia. See Reply [Dkt. No. 35] 1; Opposition (“Oppo.”) [Dkt.
No. 34] 19. This motion requires me to determine whether transfer is justified based on
convenience factors or the interest of justice. I hold that it is not.
A. CONVENIENCE FACTORS
1. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
19
A plaintiff’s forum choice is generally afforded a great deal of deference. Piper Aircraft
20
21
22
23
24
25
Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981). Because ERISA’s broadly inclusive venue provisions
show Congress’s intent to ease plaintiffs’ access to federal courts, deference is all the greater for
plaintiffs suing under this statute. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Blue Ridge
Trucking Co., No. 91 C 824, 1991 WL 140100, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 1991). On the other hand,
when the plaintiff has elected a foreign forum “the presumption in [his] favor applies with less
26
27
28
Aetna and TriNet concede that they can be “found” here under the ERISA venue provision. A
defendant can be found in any district where personal jurisdiction is proper. Varsic, 607 F.2d at
248.
3
1
1
force.” Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007)
2
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff’s choice might also merit less
3
consideration if (1) operative facts occurred outside the forum, (2) the forum lacks interest in the
4
parties or subject matter, or (3) there is evidence of forum shopping. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d
5
730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987); Burgess v. HP, Inc., No. 16-CV-04784-LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
6
15801, at *32 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2017).
7
In M.K., an ERISA plaintiff’s choice of forum merited “minimal deference” where there
8
was no “significant connection” between this district and the claim. M.K., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9
69365, at *9. In that case, a Utah resident had coverage through a Utah employer and received
medical treatment in Utah. Id. at *9. The court found that the operative claims decisions had been
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
made outside the Northern District of California and this district had no particular interest in the
12
parties or subject matter. Id. at *9. The location of the provider’s headquarters and the plan’s
13
agent for service of legal process were not enough to create a connection between the plaintiff’s
14
claims and the district. See id. at *8–9.
15
Here, Ennis’s choice of forum is entitled to some deference. While the presumption in his
16
favor is not as great as it would be if he had sued at home, it is strengthened by ERISA’s broad
17
latitude to plaintiffs’ forum selection. See Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 430; Blue Ridge, 1991 WL
18
140100, at *2. This claim has more connections to this district than the M.K. claim did. See M.K.,
19
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69365, at *7–10. The Plan administrator TriNet is located in this district,
20
Ennis’s employer is headquartered in this district, and Ennis did work for companies in California
21
while covered under the Plan. Ennis Decl. ¶ 3–5. While the evidence shows that Aetna issued the
22
denial of benefits from its Connecticut address, other correspondence Ennis received about the
23
Plan listed TriNet’s San Leandro headquarters, including designating that address as the “Agent
24
For Service of Legal Process.” See Declaration of Sheryl Southwick (“Southwick Decl.”) [Dkt.
25
No. 31-1] ¶ 3; Bather Decl. Ex. A.
26
Defendants’ accusations that Ennis engaged in forum shopping are unpersuasive. See Mot.
27
11–13. Ennis stated that he honestly believed he had to file suit in California and that he hired a
28
California lawyer based on that belief. See Ennis Decl. ¶ 8–9. The documents provided to him by
4
1
2
3
defendants make that belief facially plausible.
Because Ennis’s choice of forum is entitled to some deference, this factor does not weigh
in favor of transfer.
2. Convenience to the Parties
4
5
In arguing that it is more convenient for the parties to litigate in Georgia than in California,
6
defendants primarily rely on their perception of Ennis’s ability to travel. See Mot. 7–9; Reply 10–
7
12. But by suing in California, Ennis “signaled a willingness to travel.” See Brown v. SunTrust
8
Banks, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 3d 81, 85 (D.D.C. 2014). As for their own convenience, defendants offer
9
little to suggest why litigating in this district would be inconvenient for them. Aetna is
headquartered in Connecticut, not Georgia, and both companies have a nationwide presence.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Reply 3. With “easy air transportation, the rapid transmission of documents, and the abundance of
12
law firms with nationwide practices,” defending this suit in California will not be meaningfully
13
more difficult for defendants than it would be in Georgia. See Bd. of Trustees, Sheet Metal
14
Workers' Nat. Pension Fund v. Elite Erectors, Inc., 212 F.3d 1031, 1037 (7th Cir. 2000);
15
Chamberlain v. U.S. Bancorp Cash Balance Ret. Plan, No. 04-CV-0841, 2005 WL 2757921, at *3
16
(S.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2005) (finding that a defendant “national in scope” would have “little difficulty
17
litigating” in the district). This factor does not weigh in favor of transfer.
3. Convenience to Witnesses
18
19
In a long-term disability benefits action under ERISA, judicial review is limited to the
20
administrative record. See IBEW-NECA Sw. Health & Ben. Fund v. Gurule, No. CIV.A. 3:03-CV-
21
0092, 2003 WL 21281652, at *4 (N.D. Tex. May 22, 2003). This litigation is therefore unlikely to
22
require any witnesses, a fact which both parties acknowledge. See Oppo. 5; Reply 17. This factor
23
does not weigh in favor of transfer.
4. Ease of Access to Evidence
24
25
As noted above, this case involves a review of the administrative record. Aetna and TriNet
26
concede that given the ease of access to electronic information, this factor is neutral. Reply 18.
27
B. INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
28
The parties do not seriously dispute familiarity with governing law or feasibility of
5
1
consolidation. See M.K., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69365, at *12 (“ERISA is a federal statute that is
2
uniform across the United States.”). The other factors are discussed below.
1. Local Interest
3
4
Defendants correctly argue that Georgia has an interest in its resident being granted or
5
denied benefits; however, the cases defendants cite do not grant transfer on the basis of local
6
interest alone. Mot. 13; Reply 19; see Cole v. Bell, No. 09 C 4832, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7
114317, at *8-9 (N.D. Ill. Decl. 7, 2009) (“Because this case arose from events taking place in
8
Georgia, involves a Georgia defendant, and implicates witnesses and evidence that are located
9
there, Georgia has a prevailing interest in resolving this litigation.”) (internal quotation marks
omitted). California also has an interest in this case given that TriNet is a California corporation
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
with its principal place of business in this district. See Bather Decl. Ex. B. Georgia’s interest is
12
likely to be slightly greater than California’s, so this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
2. Judicial Economy/Relative Time to Trial
13
14
As I noted in Finjan, the new district must “promise greater efficiency” for this factor to
15
weigh in favor of transfer. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2014 WL
16
2854490, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2014). In 2017, the time to trial was 26.7 months in this
17
district and 26.5 months in the Northern District of Georgia. Req. Jud. Not. Ex. 1 [Dkt. No. 32-1].
18
There is not likely to be a meaningful difference in the time it will take either district to resolve
19
this case. See Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772, 781 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Orrick, J.)
20
(“The differences identified by the parties are not so significant or stark that they should weigh on
21
transfer at this time.”). This factor does not weigh in favor of transfer.
22
In sum, while Georgia’s interest in this case is slightly greater than California’s, it does not
23
overcome plaintiff’s choice of this forum. No convenience factor tilts the scale in favor of the
24
motion to transfer. It is denied.
25
II. MOTION TO SEAL
26
Defendants move to seal the portions of their argument and supporting documents that
27
contain Ennis’s personal identifiers and confidential medical and health information, which are
28
protected by the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the
6
1
California Constitution. Finding good cause shown, I GRANT defendants’ motion to seal. See
2
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub
3
nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016).
CONCLUSION
4
5
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to transfer is DENIED.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: September 24, 2018
8
9
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?