Meidinger et al v. Starstone U.S. Intermediaries, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Change Venue Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 10/20/2022. (KAH) Modified on 10/20/2022 to reflect emailed Billings about transfer (KAH).

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
LORI MEIDINGER,

CV 22-45-GF-BMM

Plaintiff,
vs.
STARSTONE SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
STARSTONE U.S.
INTERMEDIARIES, INC., CORE
SPECIALTY INSURANCE
HOLDINGS, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-5,

ORDER

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants StarStone Specialty Insurance Company, Core Specialty
Insurance Services, Inc., fka StarStone U.S. Intermediaries, Inc., and Core
Specialty Insurance Holdings, Inc. (“StarStone Defendants”) have filed a Motion
to Transfer Venue to the Billings Division of the District of Montana. (Doc. 8.)
Plaintiff Lori Meidinger (“Meidinger”) opposes this motion. (Doc. 12.) The Court
conducted a hearing on this motion on October 13, 2022. (Doc. 20.)

1

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 10

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
Meidinger filed this insurance bad faith action in the Great Falls Division on
May 16, 2022. (Doc. 3.) Meidinger alleges that StarStone Defendants mishandled
her insurance claims arising from a third-party legal malpractice action.
Meidinger’s claims against StarStone Defendants include violations of Montana’s
Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”), common-law bad faith, and intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 12–15.)
Meidinger allegedly sustained serious injuries in 2015 due to the negligence
of Uptown Cowboy and Bucking Horse Sale, Inc. (“BHS”), an annual rodeo stock
auction in Miles City. (Id. at 3.) Meidinger retained attorney Donald Sommerfeld
(“Sommerfeld”) to bring a negligence action against Uptown Cowboy and BHS.
(Id. at 4.) Sommerfeld negligently failed to file Meidinger’s tort action until after
the expiration of the applicable three-year statute of limitations. (Id.) Sommerfeld
admitted liability. (Id. at 4, 7.) Meidinger brought an underlying legal malpractice
action against Sommerfeld and his firm on approximately September 14, 2020. (Id.
at 4.) StarStone Defendants, Sommerfeld’s professional liability insurers, denied
liability and refused to pay Meidinger’s claim against Sommerfeld. (Id. at 5–9.)
Meidinger resides in Custer County, Montana. (Id. at 2.) The conduct giving
rise to Meidinger’s initial tort claim occurred in Custer County. Sommerfeld’s law
office and legal practice are in Yellowstone County. The alleged legal malpractice
2

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 10

took place in Yellowstone County. StarStone Defendants are out-of-state
corporations with principal places of business outside of Montana. (Id. at 3.)
StarStone Defendants’ registered agent is located in Missoula County. (Id. at 2–3.)
StarStone Defendants now seek to transfer the action to the Billings Division
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
LEGAL STANDARD
“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 brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving party bears the
burden of showing that the proposed transferee court constitutes a more
appropriate forum. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d
270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). A district court possesses discretion “to adjudicate
motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness.’” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498
(9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
Section 1404(a) requires a two-step analysis. At step one, a court must
determine whether the action might have been brought in the requested venue. See
Hillerich & Bradsby Co. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. CV 11-75-H-DWM, 2012 WL
2359488, at *1 (D. Mont. June 20, 2012). At step two, a court evaluates whether a

3

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 4 of 10

change of venue would serve the interests of justice and be more convenient for the
parties. Courts look to the following non-exhaustive factors:
(1) location of relevant agreements’ negotiation and execution;
(2) forum most familiar with the governing law;
(3) plaintiff’s choice of forum;
(4) parties’ contacts;
(5) contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in their chosen forum;
(6) litigation costs;
(7) ability to compel non-party witnesses to testify;
(8) ease of access to sources of proof; and
(9) relevant public policy.
Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99.
DISCUSSION
For federal question cases, venue properly lies in any district in which a
defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)(l). Local Rule 3.2(b) (“L.R. 3.2(b)”)
concerns the proper divisional venue within the state-wide District of Montana.
L.R. 3.2(b) provides that “venue is proper in any division of the court containing
the county of proper venue under the laws of the State of Montana.” Id. The
applicable state-law venue provision for tort actions against out-of-state corporate
defendants specifies that venue properly lies in any of the following three forums:
“(a) the county in which the tort was committed; (b) the county in which the
plaintiff resides; or (c) the county in which the corporation’s resident agent is
located[.]” Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-122(2).

4

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 5 of 10

The parties do not dispute that the District of Montana represents the proper
federal district-level venue. (Doc. 9 at 4; Doc. 12 at 3.) The parties disagree,
however, about the proper divisional venue. StarStone Defendants move to transfer
the case to the Billings Division. (Doc. 8.) StarStone Defendants argue that the
Billings Division, rather than the Great Falls Division, constitutes the proper
venue. (Doc. 9 at 9–10.) Meidinger counters that venue proves proper in the Great
Falls Division and that the Court should defer to her choice of forum. (Doc. 12 at
2–3.) Meidinger also requests, in the alternative, that the Court transfer the action
to the Missoula Division should transfer prove appropriate. (Id. at 4.)
1. Whether state law requires transfer.
Montana law mandates transfer in some circumstances. Mont. Code Ann. §
25-2-201 requires courts to change venue upon a defendant’s motion if a plaintiff
failed to bring their action in a proper venue. A court “must, on motion,” change
venue “when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county[.]” Id.
Meidinger brought this action in the Great Falls Division. Meidinger argues
that the Great Falls Division proves proper because Montana comprises one federal
judicial district. (Doc. 12 at 3.) Meidinger ignores L.R. 3.2(b), which refers to state
law to determine the appropriate divisional venue for an action. Mont. Code Ann. §
25-2-122(2) is the applicable venue provision in this action. As discussed above,
Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-122(2) provides plaintiffs three venue options for tort
5

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 6 of 10

claims against out-of-state defendants: “(a) the county in which the tort was
committed; (b) the county in which the plaintiff resides; or (c) the county in which
the corporation’s resident agent is located[.]” Id.
The parties do not dispute that StarStone Defendants are out-of-state
corporations with a registered agent in Missoula County, that Meidinger resides in
Custer County, or that her underlying tort action accrued in Yellowstone County
and/or Custer County. (Doc. 3 at 2–4; Doc. 9 at 2–3.) Custer, Yellowstone, and
Missoula counties constitute proper venues under Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-122(2).
The Billings and Missoula Divisions embrace these counties, and, therefore,
represent the only proper divisional venues for this action under L.R. 3.2(b).
Meidinger’s choice of an improper forum requires the Court to grant
StarStone Defendants’ motion to transfer the action. Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-201.
Having determined that state law requires transfer, the Court moves on to the
§1404 (a) transfer analysis to evaluate which proper divisional venue proves most
appropriate.
2. Whether Billings Division represents an appropriate forum.
At step one of the § 1404(a) transfer analysis, a court must decide whether
the proposed transferee court constitutes an appropriate forum. Hillerich, 2012 WL
2359488, at *1. The Billings Division constitutes a proper divisional venue
because it embraces Yellowstone and Custer counties. Either county represents a
6

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 7 of 10

proper venue under state law. Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-122(2); L.R. 3.2(b).
Meidinger does not contest that venue would be proper in Billings. (Doc. 12.)
3. Whether transfer to the Billings Division would serve the interests of
justice and be more convenient for the parties and witnesses.
At step two of the § 1404(a) transfer analysis, a court must exercise its
discretion in assessing whether a change of venue would serve the interests of
justice and be more convenient for the parties.
A. Meidinger’s Choice of Forum.
Meidinger cites Haug v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 770 P.2d 517, 520
(Mont. 1989), to argue that her choice of forum should be afforded deference.
(Doc. 12 at 2–3.) Haug concerned consolidated damages actions brought by two
former employees against an out-of-state railroad. 770 P.2d at 518. The Montana
Supreme Court denied the railroad’s motion to transfer because the plaintiffs had
selected one of multiple proper counties under the applicable state venue provision.
Id. at 519. Haug proves inapposite. Id. Unlike the plaintiffs in Haug, Meidinger
brought her action in an improper forum rather than in one of multiple proper
forums. Id.
Meidinger additionally argues that the Court should transfer the action to the
Missoula Division rather than the Billings Division. (Doc. 12 at 3–4.) Meidinger
offers no explanation of her preference for Missoula over Billings, apart from the
presence of StarStone Defendants’ registered agent in Missoula. (Id. at 3.)
7

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 8 of 10

StarStone Defendants argue that Meidinger waived her right to choose a venue
because she neglected to file her action in either of the two proper venues. (Doc. 12
at 6–7 (citing Seifert v. Gehle, 323 P.2d 269, 270 (Mont. 1958)).)
Seifert concerned a tort action against a Flathead County defendant arising
from a hunting accident that took place in Lincoln County. 323 P.2d at 269. The
applicable state venue rule in Siefert provided that a plaintiff could bring their
action in either the county in which the defendant resided or where the tort
occurred. Id. at 270. The plaintiff in Seifert filed suit in Lake County instead of in
Flathead or Lincoln counties. Id. at 269. The Montana Supreme Court concluded
that the “plaintiff had waived his right to have [the action] tried in one of the
proper counties” because he had brought his claim in an improper forum. Id. at
270.
The Court agrees with StarStone Defendants that Meidinger has waived her
right to select a new venue for transfer. As with the plaintiff in Seifert, Meidinger
chose to bring her action in an improper forum. Id. at 269–70. StarStone
Defendants further assert that their preferred venue should control. (Doc. 13 at 7
(citing Tassie v. Cont’l Oil Co., 228 F. Supp. 807, 809 (D. Mont. 1964) (quoting
Seifert, 323 P.2d at 270)).) In light of the Court’s decision to transfer the case to
the Billings Division based upon its evaluation of the Jones factors, the Court

8

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 9 of 10

declines to determine whether StarStone Defendants are entitled to elect the
transferee venue. 211 F.3d at 498–99.
B. Parties’ Contacts, Litigation Costs, Witnesses, and Sources of Proof.
The following Jones factors prove most relevant to determining which of the
possible transferee venues proves most appropriate: the parties’ contacts, litigation
costs, the ability to compel non-party witnesses to testify, and the ease of access to
sources of proof. 211 F.3d at 498–99. Each factor weighs in favor of transfer to the
Billings Division rather than the Missoula Division.
All of the events giving rise to Meidinger’s claim took place in the Billings
Division. (Doc. 3 at 5–14.) Counsel for both parties are located in the Billings
Division. (Doc. 13 at 8.) All or nearly all witnesses are located in the Billings
Division or outside of the state. (Id.) Transfer to the Missoula Division would
require all Billings Division-based witnesses and counsel to travel nearly 350 miles
for all court appearances. (Id.) Litigating this case in Billings rather than in
Missoula would prove less costly and more efficient for both parties and witnesses.
Weighed together, the Jones factors confirm that this action belongs in the Billings
Division. 211 F.3d at 498–99.
CONCLUSION
Billings constitutes the most proper divisional venue in this case. Transfer to
the Billings Division comports with L.R. 3.2(b) and Mont. Code Ann. §§ 25-29

Case 1:22-cv-00119-SPW-TJC Document 21 Filed 10/20/22 Page 10 of 10

122(2), 25-2-201(1). Transfer also serves the interests of justice and the
convenience of the parties and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jones, 211 F.3d at
498–99.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that StarStone Defendants’ Motion to
Transfer Venue (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
TRANSFER the matter to the BILLINGS DIVISION pursuant to L.R. 3.2(b) and
Standing Order No. BMM-14 at 3.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2022.

10