Prince v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 12

ORDER granting ECF No. 5 Oregon Mutual's Motion to Transfer. This action is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Southern Division. The remaining motions raised in Defendants omnibus motion ECF No. 5 are denied without prejudice to renew. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 03/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

JOSEPH PRINCE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, )
an Oregon corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________ )

3:16-cv-00502-HDM-WGC
ORDER

18

Before the court is defendant Oregon Mutual Insurance Company’s

19

(“Oregon Mutual”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,

20

in the alternative to dismiss for improper venue, in the alternative

21

to transfer for improper venue, or in the alternative to transfer for

22

convenience. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 7) and Oregon

23

Mutual replied (ECF No. 8).

24

I.

Background

25

This action arises out of a coverage dispute between plaintiff,

26

an Idaho resident, against Oregon Mutual, an Oregon corporation whose

27

principal place of business is Oregon, regarding plaintiff’s claim for

28

underinsured motorist coverage.

On June 30, 2011, plaintiff was
1

1

involved in a car accident with Courtney Spring on State Route 225

2

near the Wild Horse Recreation Area, Elko, County, Nevada.

3

was the permissive driver of the truck owned by Doug Smith.

4

Smith

5

Insurance Group, issued in Idaho, which had underinsured motorist

6

limits

7

insurance

8

plaintiff as an insured and had underinsured motorist limits of

9

$100,000. Plaintiff’s medical expenses resulting from the accident

had

of

a

personal

$100,000.
policy

with

automobile

Plaintiff
Oregon

insurance

also

Mutual,

had

a

issued

policy

with

personal
in

Plaintiff
Doug

Farmers

automobile

Idaho,

covering

10

exceed $99,728.32 and his loss of earnings exceed $96,492.64.

11

November 15, 2011, plaintiff filed suit against Courtney Spring. On

12

June 13, 2013, plaintiff received the liability limits of $100,000

13

from Courtney Spring.

14

limits or offset underinsured motorist coverage required the first

15

$100,000 of the $200,000 underinsured motorist coverage available to

16

Plaintiff to be offset against the $100,000 liability limits paid by

17

Courtney Spring through his personal automobile liability insurance

18

policy, thereby providing $100,000 in underinsured motorist benefits

19

available to Plaintiff as compensation for his serious and permanent

20

injuries.”

On

Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he difference in

(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 17).

21

On August 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint requesting

22

declaratory relief regarding whether the automobile insurance policy

23

provided by Oregon Mutual provides $100,000 underinsured motorist

24

coverage to plaintiff for the injuries plaintiff sustained as a result

25

of a June 30, 2011 accident.

26

there is diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that

27

venue

28

§ 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions

is

appropriate

in

(ECF No. 1).

this

district

2

The complaint states that

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

1

giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

2

II.

3

Motion to Transfer Venue
The court first addresses the Oregon Mutual’s motion to transfer

4

venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

5

“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

6

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

7

district or division where it might have been brought.”

8

§ 1404(a).

9

adequate alternative forum exists.

10

Section 1404 establishes that

28 U.S.C.

The moving party bears the burden of showing that an
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,

211 F.3d 495, 499 n. 22 (9th Cir. 2000).

11

Motions to transfer under § 1404(a) are adjudicated through an

12

“individualized,

13

fairness.”

14

U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).

15

in a particular case, the court is required to weigh multiple factors.

16

For example, the court may consider: (1) the location
where the relevant agreements were negotiated and
executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the
governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4)
the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the
contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in
the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of
litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of
compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling nonparty witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of
proof.

17
18
19
20
21

case-by-case

consideration

of

convenience

and

Id. at 498(quoting Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487

22

Id. at 498–99.

23

A.

In determining whether transfer is appropriate

24

Action Could Have Been Brought in the District of Idaho
Here, the action could have been brought in the United States

25

District Court for the District of Idaho, Southern Division.

26

venue is proper because substantial conduct giving rise to the claim

27

occurred in Idaho–the insurance contract was executed in Idaho and the

28

alleged

denial

of

coverage

occurred
3

in

Idaho.

See

28

First,

U.S.C.

1

§ 1391(b)(2).

2

personal

3

sufficient minimum contacts with Idaho.

4

writing insurance policies in Idaho and executed the contract at issue

5

in Idaho.

6

district

7

plaintiff’s claims.

8

B.

9

Second, the federal district court in Idaho has

jurisdiction

over

the

defendant

as

Oregon

Mutual

has

Oregon Mutual does business

Finally, the parties do not dispute that the federal
court

in

Idaho

would

have

diversity

jurisdiction

over

Convenience of the Parties and Interests of Justice
1.

Where relevant agreements were negotiated and executed

10

The only agreement at issue is the insurance contract entered

11

into between Oregon Mutual and Ronetta Smith. (ECF No. 5, Exhibit A).

12

The record reflects that this agreement was negotiated and executed

13

in Idaho.

This factor therefore favors transfer.

14

2.

15

The parties agree that Idaho law applies to the interpretation

State most familiar with the governing law

16

of the insurance contract.

17

with the application of Idaho law, this factor favors transfer.

18

Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843 (holding courts may consider “the

19

interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is

20

at home with the law that must govern the action”).

As an Idaho court would be more familiar

21

3.

22

Plaintiff filed this action in Nevada.

23

See

Plaintiff’s choice of forum
Therefore this factor

weighs against transfer.

24

4.

25

Plaintiff is an Idaho resident, but was temporarily employed in

Parties’ Contacts with Nevada

26

Nevada at the time of the accident.

27

corporation whose principal place of business is Oregon.

28

Mutual’s present business activity in Nevada is limited solely to
4

Oregon Mutual is an Oregon
Oregon

1

winding up any outstanding claims that occurred prior to the surrender

2

of its Certificate of Authority to do insurance business in Nevada.

3

Plaintiff resides in Idaho and Oregon Mutual negotiated and entered

4

into the insurance contract, the subject of this action, in Idaho.

5

Therefore the court concludes that the parties contacts’ with Nevada

6

are not as substantial as those with Idaho.

7

5.

8

Plaintiff’s

9

Parties’ Contacts Relating to Prince’s Claims
contacts

with

Nevada

are

limited.

His

only

connection to Nevada is that the accident triggering his request for

10

underinsured motorist covered occurred in Nevada.

11

allegation that the wrongdoing that is the basis of the complaint

12

occurred in Nevada other than the fact that Oregon Mutual sent its

13

denial of underinsured motorist benefits to Nevada.

14

parties’ contacts with Nevada relating to plaintiff’s claims are not

15

substantial and the actions that plaintiff complains of did not take

16

place here, this factor also favors transfer.

There is no

Because the

17

6.

18

Plaintiff is an Idaho resident and the contract was entered into

Cost of Litigation

19

in Idaho.

20

in Oregon. Therefore it is more likely cost-effective for this action

21

to transfer to Idaho.

Oregon Mutual is an Oregon corporation and does business

22

7.

23

No non-party witnesses have been identified as residing in

Availability of Compulsory Process to Compel Witnesses

24

Nevada.

25

depose any witnesses or to utilize compulsory process.

26

7).

Plaintiff represents that he does not anticipate the need to
(ECF No. 7 at

Accordingly, this factor is neutral.

27

8.

28

Plaintiff states that he has “most if not all the documentation

Access to Sources of Proof

5

1

necessary to present this matter to the Court.”

2

This factor is therefore neutral.

(ECF No. 7 at 7).

3

9.

4

Idaho clearly has personal jurisdiction over Oregon Mutual.

5

However, there is a substantial question whether this court has

6

personal jurisdiction over Oregon Mutual. Because the court concludes

7

that convenience and fairness weigh heavily in favor of a transfer it

8

is unnecessary for the court to decide whether it has personal

9

jurisdiction over Oregon Mutual.1

10
11

Additional Factor- Issue of Personal Jurisdiction

III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Oregon Mutual’s motion to

12

transfer is granted.

13

States District Court for the District of Idaho, Southern Division.

14

The remaining motions raised in defendant’s omnibus motion (ECF No.

15

5) are denied without prejudice to renew.

This action is hereby transferred to the United

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: This 28th day of March, 2017.

18
19

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court can transfer under § 1404(a) regardless of whether it has
personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
See Sinochem Int’l Co. v.
Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 425 (2007); Goldlawr, Inc. v.
Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466-67 (1962); Stanbury Elec. Eng’g, LLC v. Energy
Prod., Inc., 2016 WL 3255003, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 13, 2016); Kawamoto v.
CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1211 (D. Haw. 2002) (“[T]his
court may transfer venue under . . .§ 1404(a) . . . without regard to
whether it has personal jurisdiction over” the defendant.).

6