Hilbert v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 3/6/2015 granting 9 Motion to Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.cc: Counsel(DAK)[Transferred from Kentucky Western on 3/9/2015.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-565-JGH
YVONNE HILBERT
PLAINTIFF
v.
THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
To be in federal court, a case must satisfy certain jurisdictional requirements. To be in a
particular federal court, a case must meet certain requirements to establish that court as the
proper venue. Some federal statutes, like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, give
rather broad venue parameters. Claims for ERISA-governed benefits “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 . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) (2012). Yvonne Hilbert brought her claims in
this Court—and the parties agree that her choice is proper under the statute. Although, the
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) believes that this case should be
transferred to a more convenient venue. After careful consideration, the Court agrees with
Lincoln and transfers this case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The threshold question before transferring a case is always whether the action “might
have been brought” in the potential transferee venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Here, the parties
agree that Hilbert’s action might have been brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The
next inquiries, then, require a potential transferor court to “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 systematic integrity and fairness, which come under the rubric
of ‘interests of justice.’” Moore v. Rahm & Haas Co., 446 F.3d 643, 647 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted). In addressing these considerations, the Sixth Circuit instructs district courts 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) systematic integrity and fairness; and (6)
plaintiff’s choice of forum. The moving party must demonstrate that the balance of the factors
weighs in favor of transfer. Pharmerica Corp. v. Crestwood Care Ctr., L.P., 2013 WL 542547,
at *2 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2013) (citation omitted). Though it is true that “the plaintiff’s choice
of forum should rarely be disturbed . . . the plaintiff’s choice is by no means dispositive.” Id.
(citation omitted).
Few facts are relevant to these inquiries. Yvonne Hilbert claims that she is physically
unable to perform a sedentary occupation because of severe pain. She sued Lincoln seeking
long-term disability under an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. This Court is 600 miles
away from her home, which is located within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Apparently,
one of the divisional courthouses in that district is only four miles away from her home.
Hilbert’s former employer established and administered her benefits plan. That employer is also
located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. All of her medical information and all of her
treating physicians are located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. And the defendant’s
principal place of business is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The only connection to this
Court is that Hilbert’s counsel resides and practices law within the Western District of Kentucky.
Thus, the Sixth Circuit’s factors militate for transfer of this case. As for the second
factor, Hilbert resides in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Lincoln’s principal place of
2
business is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 The 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. They may become relevant, however, in cases
like this one where it appears the plaintiff plans to assert claims and seek relief beyond the
traditional ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim for benefits.2 Most possible witnesses, it seems, are
located in Pennsylvania—this includes Hilbert; Delta Dental, her former employer and plan
administrator; and Lincoln employees who are involved in claims, management, and finance. It
is true that the employees who participated in Hilbert’s claim are stationed in Nebraska, but it
still appears that most potential witnesses and the Lincoln witnesses best positioned to testify
about whether Lincoln had established “claims processes intentionally designed to delay and
deny claims” are located in Pennsylvania . DN 9-1, PageID #39. As for the location of
evidence, this factor is neutral in this case. Again, this is because of the use of the administrative
record in ERISA cases. But to the extent that Hilbert pursues non-traditional ERISA claims,
information relating to Lincoln’s operational processes and the like would much more likely be
found in Pennsylvania than here in Western Kentucky. To the fourth factor—location of events
giving rise to the suit—Lincoln put forth several cases supporting the proposition that the place
of an ERISA breach is the place where payment was to be received. See, e.g., Coulter v. Office
& Prof’l Emps. Int’l Union, 2003 WL 21938910, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. June 10, 2003). The fifth
factor, systematic integrity and fairness, also cuts against Hilbert. Frankly, this case has almost
no connection to Western Kentucky. Indeed, the only connection is Hilbert’s counsel. Though
this venue is technically proper, Hilbert’s choice to file in Western Kentucky raises concerns of
1
Hilbert’s counsel actually disputes this, based in part on the deposition of a Lincoln employee in another
case. Lincoln denies that employee had requisite knowledge to testify on its organizational structure, and it avers
that its principal place of business is in Radnor, Pennsylvania. The Court sees no reason to doubt this assertion.
2
Hilbert also claims that Lincoln breached a fiduciary duty and seeks disgorgement of any improper gains
realized from that breach.
3
forum shopping. Last is the consideration of Hilbert’s choice of forum. Usually, a plaintiff’s
choice receives deference. Several courts, however, have indicated it is given little deference
when the plaintiff chooses a forum that is not her home. See, e.g., Dorsey v. Hartford Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 2009 WL 793384, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 16, 2009). Though the Court
considered her choice, the choice received little deference given the circumstances. With the
other factors against her, the Court will transfer.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is
SUSTAINED and the case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.
March 6, 2015
cc:
Counsel of Record
4
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?