C.B. et al v. OPTUM et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting #18 Motion to Transfer Venue. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 9/23/24. (dle) [Transferred from Utah on 9/24/2024.]

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH

MEMORANDUM DECISION

C.B. and A.B.,

AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
OPTUM, UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, and the
DANAHER CORPORATION &
SUBSIDIARIES MEDICAL PLAN,

Case No. 2:23-cv-00687 JNP
Judge Jill N. Parrish

Defendants.

Plaintiffs C.B. and A.B. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against Optum,
United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Behavioral Health, and the Danaher Corporation
& Subsidiaries Medical Plan (collectively, “Defendants”) after Defendants failed to pay for
treatment A.B. received in Utah.
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF No. 18). Pursuant to local rule 7-1(g) of the United States District Court
for the District of Utah Rules of Practice, the court elects to determine the motion on the basis of
the written memoranda and finds that oral argument would not be helpful or necessary. DUCivR
7-1(g).
BACKGROUND
This case concerns a claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) regarding Plaintiff
C.B.’s attempt to obtain coverage for his child, A.B.’s, medical care and treatment at two separate

Utah-based facilities, Viewpoint Center (“Viewpoint”) and Telos Residential Treatment Center
(“Telos”). Plaintiff C.B. resides in Wisconsin. Plaintiff A.B. resides in Missouri. C.B. is employed
by Danaher Corporation (“Danaher”), a global company with its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Danaher provides healthcare benefits to its employees, including Plaintiffs, under The Danaher
Corporation & Subsidiaries Medical Plan (“the Plan”), which is located and administered in
Washington D.C. The Plan is an employee-welfare benefits plan under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), governed by 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq.
United Healthcare Insurance Company (“United”) is a Connecticut corporation with its
principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. United is the third-party claims administrator
for medical benefits under the Plan. Claims for mental health benefits under the Plan are
administered by United Behavioral Health (“United Behavioral”), which is a California
corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. “Optum” is a
reference to the brand name under which United Behavioral operates.
From June 16, 2017 through August 8, 2017, A.B. received treatment at Viewpoint. From
August 8, 2018 through May 14, 2018, A.B. received treatment at Telos. Plaintiffs requested
payment for A.B.’s treatment at both Utah facilities.
Initially, United partially denied Plaintiffs’ request for benefits for the services received at
Viewpoint and Telos pursuant to the terms of the Plan due to lack of medical necessity. United
provided some initial coverage for A.B.’s treatment at Viewpoint but then denied coverage for the
remainder of A.B.’s stay at Viewpoint and for all of A.B.’s treatment at Telos. United did not make
any coverage decisions in Utah relating to Plaintiffs’ claims for services received at either
Viewpoint or Telos.

In December 2021, Plaintiffs submitted a level one appeal for the denial of payment for
A.B.’s treatment at Viewpoint and Telos. In February 2022, United overturned the Viewpoint
denial and approved coverage for all of A.B.’s treatment at Viewpoint. United upheld the Telos
denial. Plaintiffs then submitted a level two appeal of the Telos denial. In September 2022, United
partially overturned that denial, covering A.B.’s treatment from August 8, 2017 through September
15, 2017. Some correspondence passed through Utah to Plaintiffs and went to A.B.’s providers in
Utah, but no coverage decisions relating to A.B. were made in Utah.
Plaintiffs allege that United has an appeals and claims processing facility in Utah.
Defendants dispute this assertion, averring that United merely has a vendor that maintains a postoffice address at a service center in Utah where some communications from members and
providers are sent and received. This is a pass-through facility where mail is sent, or opened,
electronically scanned, and distributed to the address. No benefits or appeals decisions are made
at this facility.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah for
recovery of benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Plaintiffs also allege that United
violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (“MHPAEA”) under ERISA
section 1132(a)(3). Defendants now request a venue transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),
arguing that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where the Plan is located
and administered, is a closer and more convenient venue for all parties and witnesses. For the
reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue.
DISCUSSION
This court has broad discretion to grant a motion for change of venue. Stewart
Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 28 (1988). Section 1404 of Title 28 provides: “For

the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer
any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district
or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The party moving to
transfer a case pursuant to § 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing that the existing forum is
inconvenient.” Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10th Cir.
1991). “Merely shifting the inconvenience from one side to the other, however, obviously is not a
permissible justification for a change of venue.” Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc.,
618 F.3d 1153, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To ascertain whether a movant has met its burden, a district court should consider the
following factors:
[T]he plaintiff’s choice of forum; the accessibility of witnesses and other sources
of proof, including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of
witnesses; the cost of making the necessary proof; questions as to the enforceability
of a judgment if one is obtained; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial;
difficulties that may arise from congested dockets; the possibility of the existence
of questions arising in the area of conflict of laws; the advantage of having a local
court determine questions of local law; and, all other considerations of a practical
nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical.
Chrysler Credit Corp., 928 F.2d at 1516 (quoting Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145,
147 (10th Cir. 1967)).
The threshold inquiry in a § 1404(a) analysis is whether the action could have originally
been brought in the proposed transferee district. Under 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2), an ERISA action
may be brought “in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or
where a defendant resides or may be found.” Id. In this case, there is no dispute that the action
could have originally been brought in the District of Columbia, where Danaher administers the
Plan, and ultimately denied coverage. There is also no dispute that the action is technically proper
in the District of Utah as Defendants can “be found” here.

The sole issue before the court, therefore, is whether the District of Columbia or the District
of Utah is a more appropriate forum under the factors set forth above. Of these factors, the court
is not aware of any significant or material difference between the District of Utah and the District
of Columbia regarding the cost of making the necessary proof, or the ability of the parties to receive
a fair trial. Additionally, because this is a federal case involving the application of federal law,
concerns regarding conflict of laws and the interpretation of local laws are not present. See IHC
Health Servs. Inc. v. Eskaton Properties, No. 2:16-cv-3-DN, 2016 WL 4769342, *8 (D. Utah Sept.
12, 2016).
Accordingly, the court addresses the remaining relevant factors to determine whether this
case should be transferred for fairness and convenience.
Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum
“Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the movant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed.” Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1167
(10th Cir. 2010). “The plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference, however, if the plaintiff
does not reside in the district.” Id. “Courts also accord little weight to a plaintiff’s choice of forum
where the facts giving rise to the lawsuit have no material relation or significant connection to the
plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the context of ERISA, this court has routinely declined to defer to a plaintiff’s choice of
forum where the location of plaintiff’s treatment was the only connection to the forum. As this
court previously explained:
[T]he plaintiffs reside [in another forum], and though [plaintiff] received medical
treatment in this district, the actual facts that give rise to a claim under §
1132(a)(1)(B) are not the facts of treatment. Rather, a claim for benefits asks a court
to review an administrator’s denial of benefits – and disposition of any subsequent
appeals – on the basis of the information the administrator was provided alongside

the relevant terms of the plan document. On the basis of the complaint, those events
did not take place in this district.
Richard T.B. v. United Healthcare Insurance Co., No. 2:18-cv-73-JNP, 2019 WL 145736, at *3 (D.
Utah Jan. 9, 2019) (assigning “little weight” to plaintiff’s choice of forum where plaintiff’s only
connection to Utah was medical treatment in the district); see also, e.g., Rula A.-S. v. Aurora Health
Care, Slip Copy, No. 2:19-cv-00982-DAO, 2020 WL 7230119, *3 (D. Utah Dec. 8, 2020)
(declining to defer to plaintiffs’ choice of forum and transferring case where the District of Utah’s
only connection to facts was location of treatment); Michael M. v. Nexen Pruet Group Medical &
Dental Plan, No. 2:17-cv-01236-TS, 2018 WL 1406600, at *5 (D. Utah Mar. 19, 2018) (finding
plaintiffs’ choice of forum “not controlling” because only connection to Utah was medical
treatment in Utah); IHC Health Servs. Inc. v. Eskaton Properties, No. 2:16-cv-3-DN, 2016 WL
4769342, at *9 (D. Utah Sept. 12, 2016) (concluding that plaintiff’s choice of forum was “not a
controlling factor” where Utah lacked any significant connection with the operative facts of the
case other than the location of medical treatment).
In this case, A.B.’s treatment in Utah provides the only connection to this forum. None of
the parties reside in Utah. The Plan was not administered in Utah. The alleged breaches did not
occur in Utah. The decision to deny benefits was not made in Utah. Under these circumstances,
and in accord with persuasive and applicable authority, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to
little weight and is not controlling. Plaintiffs have failed to show that their choice of forum
outweighs any other consideration in the transfer analysis.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim that because United can “be found” in Utah, as required
under ERISA, see 29. U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), Utah is a more convenient and logical place to litigate
the merits of the case. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs allege that United has extensive
employees and members in Utah and directs its members to send claims to a physical address in

Utah. In other words, Plaintiffs argue that because of Defendants’ business connections in Utah,
although unrelated to the instant case, the District of Utah is a more appropriate venue.
The court does not agree. While it is true that venue is technically proper in Utah because
United can “be found” here, it does not automatically follow that Utah is the best venue in which
to proceed. Even where venue is proper, courts allow transfer of venue where there is no material
relationship between a plaintiff’s choice of forum and the case at hand. J.K. v. Anthem Blue Cross
& Blue Shield, No. 2:22-cv-00370 JNP, 2023 WL 6276598, at *3 (D. Utah Sep. 26, 2023) (finding
the interests of convenience and justice favor transfer where the plan was not administered,
adjudicated, or breached in Utah); K.A. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., No. 2:23-cv-00315, 2023
WL 7282544, at *2-3 (D. Utah Nov. 3, 2023) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “While
ERISA may allow for national service of process, that was not intended to provide a vehicle for all
plaintiffs nationwide to bring their claims in any district they deem most favorable.” Jon N. v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 1:07-cv-137 DAK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35464, at *9 (D. Utah
Apr. 29, 2008). To hold otherwise would encourage forum shopping and undermine the ability to
litigate ERISA cases in forums most closely aligned with the facts and parties of each case.
At bottom, while Defendants can “be found” in Utah pursuant to ERISA’s nationwide
service provision and United has some business operations in Utah, none of these contacts has a
material connection to the facts of this case and the district where the Plan is administered is
therefore a more appropriate forum. See J.K., 2023 WL 6276598, at *4 (transferring the case to
the location of the plan where the plan was not administered, adjudicated or breached in Utah and
where the plaintiffs did not live in Utah); K.A., 2023 WL 7282544, at *2-3 (transferring case
outside of Utah, finding no meaningful connection between plaintiffs’ case and Utah where the
only connections to that forum were the plaintiffs’ counsel and United’s vendor’s facility).

Accessibility of Witnesses and Other Sources of Proof
“The convenience of witnesses is the most important factor in deciding a motion under §
1404(a).” Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1169 (10th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). However, the convenience of witnesses is not as important in
ERISA cases since the court’s review is generally limited to the administrative record. See Michael
M., 2018 WL 1406600, at *5 (citing IHC Health Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 4769342, at *9).
“Nevertheless, to the extent witnesses may be required, courts have concluded the relevant
witnesses in ERISA cases are those involved in administering the plan and denying the claims.”
Rula A.-S., 2020 WL 7230119, at *4. Here, the relevant witnesses and documents involved in
administering the Plan are located where the Plan was administered in Washington D.C. Further,
the relevant witnesses and documents involved in denying Plaintiffs’ claims are also located in
Washington D.C.
Plaintiffs argue, however, that despite the Plan being administered in Washington D.C.,
Utah is still the preferred venue because Plaintiffs’ Utah counsel gathered relevant medical records
and documents to establish the medical necessity of the treatment A.B. received. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs argue, creation of the prelitigation appeal record that Defendants reviewed occurred in
Utah.
Plaintiffs’ argument misses the mark. Under ERISA, the critical issue is where the benefits
determination and administration of the Plan occurred; where work was done to collect and analyze
documents that were later reviewed by a healthcare administrator is simply irrelevant. To hold
otherwise, would mandate that all ERISA cases be heard where Plaintiffs’ counsel is located. This
neither can nor should be the analysis and consequent result. Here, where the Plan is located and
administered in Washington D.C., the District of Columbia is a more appropriate forum.

Enforceability of a Judgment
Courts have generally understood that judgments are more easily enforced against
defendants in the state in which they reside. Michael M., 2018 WL 1406600, at *6 (D. Utah Mar.
19, 2018) (“[A]ny judgment against Defendants would be easier to enforce in South Carolina
since that is where Defendants reside.”) (unpublished). Accordingly, enforceability of any
judgment that might be entered weighs in favor of transfer to the District of Columbia where
Danaher resides.
Docket Congestion
Both parties concede that the District of Columbia has a less congested docket than the
District of Utah. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Other Practical Considerations
“[C]onvenience is not the only policy underlying § 1404(a): the interest of justice in the
proper venue should not be forgotten.” Michael M., 2018 WL 1406600, at *7 (quoting Danny P. v.
Catholic Health Initiatives, No. 1:14-cv-22-DN, 2015 WL 164183, at *3 (D. Utah Jan. 13, 2015)). 1
Under a practical consideration of all the facts, the District of Columbia is the forum with the
greatest connection to the operative facts of this case and is the most appropriate forum. As
previously stated, none of the parties in this case reside in Utah. Although claims were initially
processed in Utah, the Plan was not administered, adjudicated, or breached in Utah. Conversely,
Plaintiffs reside in Wisconsin and Missouri, and the decision whether to award benefits occurred

1

Plaintiffs assert that this factor also weighs strongly against transferring the case because
there is an interest in limiting claims to one federal district which encourages uniformity in the
decisions interpreting ERISA and a plan. The court disagrees. There is no evidence that the
District of Columbia is less equipped to handle ERISA cases than the District of Utah.

exclusively in Washington D.C. In short, the practical considerations and the interests of justice
weigh in favor of transferring the case to the District of Columbia.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 18) is
GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2024.

BY THE COURT:
______________________________________
JILL N. PARRISH
United States District Court Judge