HCA, Inc. v. Parra et al

Filing 31

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue" (Docket No. 10), should therefore be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/15/16. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

HCA, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY PARRA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-01603
Judge Haynes / Knowles

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss for Improper
Venue, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue.” Docket No. 10. Attached to that Motion,
Defendants have submitted a supporting Memorandum of Law, a copy of the Verified
Complaint, the Affidavit of Anthony Parra, and the Affidavit of Daniel Thomas. Id.
Plaintiff has filed a Response in Opposition to the instant Motion. Docket No. 12.
Plaintiff filed this action to enforce the terms of the HCA Health and Welfare Benefits
Plan (“Plan”), a self-funded plan that is covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. Docket No. 1. The Summary Plan
Description contains a “Subrogation and Reimbursement” provision, which requires a participant
to reimburse the Program for all benefits paid in the event the participant is able to recover funds
from another party. Id. This case seeks the enforcement of the Plan’s right of reimbursement
after the underlying third-party action was settled. Id.1
1

Defendant Parra is a participant in the Plan, which paid at least $149,312.25 in benefits
on his behalf after a personal injury accident on or about June 25, 2012. Id. Defendant Parra
settled all or a portion of his claims arising out of that accident for approximately $300,000. Id.

Defendants filed the instant Motion seeking dismissal based upon improper venue or, in
the alternative, seeking transfer to the Western District of Missouri, which Defendants contend is
the proper venue. Docket No. 10. Defendants assert that 29 U.S.C. § 1332(e)(2) provides that
venue is proper in the district where: (1) the Plan is administered; (2) the breach took place; or
(3) the defendant resides or may be found. Id., citing 29 U.S.C. § 1332(e)(2). Defendants argue,
therefore, that venue is improper in Tennessee because: (1) Defendant Parra, the beneficiary of
the Plan, resides in Missouri; (2) this Court does not have sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy
personal jurisdiction requirements; and (3) an alleged breach of the Plan would have necessarily
taken place in Missouri. Id. With regard to Plaintiff’s argument that venue is proper in
Tennessee because the Plan is administered here, Defendants argue:
[W]hile Plaintiff alleges that the plan is administered in Tennessee,
it attaches no supporting documentation or affidavits to evidence as
much. Failing to provide Defendants or this Court with any
evidence to support its contention that the plan is in fact
administered in Tennessee is fatal to Plaintiff’s theory of venue.
Id.
The parties agree that venue is proper in Tennessee if the Plan is administered in
Tennessee. Although Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to provide them or this Court
with any evidence to support its contention that the Plain is administered in Tennessee, Plaintiff’s
Complaint in this action is a proper Verified Complaint. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint states:
8.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), venue in this Court is
proper because the Plan is administered in this District, and
personal jurisdiction is proper because the Defendants all

It is from this settlement of the accident that Plaintiff seeks subrogation reimbursement. Id.
2

“reside or may be found” within the United States.
Id.
Plaintiff’s properly verified Complaint establishes that the Plan is administered in
Tennessee. Accordingly, Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the
Alternative, to Transfer Venue” (Docket No. 10), should therefore be DENIED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

________________________________
E. CLIFTON KNOWLES
United States Magistrate Judge

3