Hopkins v. Life Insurance Company of North America
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Transfer Venue. This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Signed by Judge Greg N. Stivers. cc: Counsel; Clerk, USDC - MD/NC(CDR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00375-GNS-CHL
MARTHA HOPKINS
PLAINTIFF
v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Life Insurance Company of North
America’s (“LINA”) Motion to Transfer Venue. (Def.’s Mot. to Transfer Venue, DN 11). Fully
briefed, this motion is ripe for a decision. For the following reasons, LINA’s motion is
GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Martha Hopkins (“Hopkins”) is insured under a long-term disability policy
underwritten by LINA and administered by Hopkins’ former employer, LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
(Compl. 2, DN 1; Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer Venue 1, DN 11-1 [hereinafter
Def.’s Mem. in Supp.]). She alleges in her Complaint that by improperly terminating her
benefits, LINA is in breach of contract. (Compl. 3). Hopkins is a North Carolina resident, LINA
is a Pennsylvania company with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, LifePoint
Hospitals, Inc. is headquartered in Tennessee, and Hopkins’ treating physicians are all in
Virginia. (Lodi Aff. 1-2, DN 11-2).
On September 18, 2015, LINA filed its motion seeking to transfer this matter to the
Middle District of North Carolina, which is the district in which Hopkins resides. (Def.’s Mem.
in Supp. 2). Hopkins responded (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Transfer Venue, DN 13
[hereinafter Pl.’s Resp.]), and LINA has replied in support of its motion (Def.’s Reply in Supp.
of Def.’s Mot. to Transfer Venue, DN 15 [hereinafter Def.’s Reply]). The motion is thus ripe for
adjudication.
II.
JURISDICTION
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction in that this civil action arises under the laws of
the United States, including, but not limited to 29 U.S.C. § 1132. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
III.
DISCUSSION
In its motion, LINA argues that because this matter has no tie to Kentucky, other than
the fact that Hopkins’ counsel is based and licensed to practice law in Kentucky, it should be
transferred to a different venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. 3, 6). LINA offers the Middle District of North
Carolina as a proposed receiving district based on Hopkins’ residence in that district, and the fact
that the alleged breach occurred in that district. (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. 5). Hopkins objects,
relying on the broad venue provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, and case law holding that a plaintiff’s choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed. (Pl.’s Resp. 2, 5).
“For the convenience of 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
2
brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ERISA provides that venue is proper “‘in the
district . . . where a defendant resides or may be found.’” Moore v. Rohm & Haas Co., 446 F.3d
643, 646 (6th Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2)). There is no
argument that the Western District of Kentucky is an impermissible venue, nor is there an
argument that the Middle District of North Carolina is an impermissible venue.
“[I]n ruling on a motion to transfer under §1404(a), a district court should consider the
private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of potential
witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systemic integrity and fairness . . . .’”
Moore, 446 F.3d at 647 n.1 (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Moses v. Bus. Card Express, Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991)). In analyzing
these factors, the courts are to examine: “(1) the location of witnesses; (2) the parties’ residences;
(3) the location of evidence; (4) the location of events that gave rise to the suit; (5) [systemic]
integrity and fairness; and (6) plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Hilbert v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
No. 3:14-CV-565-JGH, 2015 WL 1034058, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 6, 2015).
As this Court has previously noted, “[t]he first and third factors, the location of witnesses
and evidence, are often irrelevant in ERISA suits since these cases are typically decided on
review of the administrative record.” Id. at *2. To the extent that those factors are relevant,
Hopkins, her physicians, her former employer, and LINA are all located elsewhere than the
Western District of Kentucky. (Lodi Aff. 1-2). To the second factor, Hopkins resides in North
Carolina and LINA is a Pennsylvania company with its principal place of business also in
Pennsylvania. (Lodi Aff. 1-2).
As to the fourth factor, this Court has previously held that the location of events that gave
rise to the suit in the context of an ERISA matter “is the place where payment was to be
3
received.” Hilbert, No. 3:14-CV-565-JGH, 2015 WL 1034058, at *2 (citing Coulter v. Office of
Prof’l Emps. Int’l Union, No. 1:03-CV-111, 2003 WL 21938910, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. June 10,
2003)). Hopkins filled out a Disability Questionnaire and Activities of Daily Living form
supplied by LINA on June 16, 2014, in support of her claim for long-term disability, and in that
form her address is listed as being in Pelham, North Carolina. (Lodi Aff. 2). Presumably, she
would receive payments at that address, making it the location of the alleged breach.
The fifth factor weighs against Hopkins, as this case has no connection with Kentucky at
all other than the fact that her counsel is located and licensed to practice in Kentucky. See
Hilbert, No. 3:14-CV-565-JGH, 2015 WL 1034058, at *2. Finally, Hopkins chose the Western
District of Kentucky, and normally her choice is entitled to deference. DRFP L.L.C. v. Republica
Bolivariana de Venezuela, 622 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2010). This deference, however, is
lessened when a “plaintiff chooses a forum that is not her home.” Hilbert, No. 3:14-CV-565JGH, 2015 WL 1034058, at *2 (citing Dorsey v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 1:08CV-243, 2009 WL 703384, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 16, 2009)).
Consideration of the pertinent factors here leads to the common-sense conclusion that
Kentucky is not the proper place for this action. The sole connection here is Plaintiff’s counsel’s
law practice, while all conceivable substantive facets of the claim lie elsewhere. Under these
circumstances, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is far outweighed by the other factors, which dicate
that venue is the most appropriate in North Carolina. On this basis, the Court will grant LINA’s
request and transfer this matter.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Life Insurance Company of
North America’s Motion to Transfer (DN 11) is GRANTED.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
December 16, 2015
cc:
counsel of record
Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
5
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?