Apodaca v. The Prudential Insurance Company Of America
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 9 Opposed MOTION to Change Venue to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey or the Northern District of Illinois. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FELICIA APODACA,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-1922
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending
is
Defendant
The
Prudential
Insurance
Company
of
America's ("Defendant") Motion to Transfer Venue (Document No.9).
After
carefully
applicable
law,
considering
the
Court
the
motion,
concludes
that
response,
the
case
reply,
should
and
be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Felicia Apodaca ("Plaintiff"), a resident of Morris,
Illinois, was employed by The Scotts Company until she allegedly
became disabled in October 2009. 1
Plaintiff contends that she was
a covered beneficiary under The Scotts Company Long Term Disability
Plan ("the Plan"), a group disability benefits policy administered
by Defendant,2 and that Defendant wrongfully denied her disability
Document No. 1
~~
2, 17-20.
benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132. 3
Defendant now moves to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a).4
either
the
Defendant asks that the suit be transferred to
District
of
New
Jersey,
where
Defendant
has
its
principal place of business and made the final decision regarding
Plaintiff's appeal, or to the Northern District of Illinois, where
Plaintiff lives and worked. 5
should
remain
in
the
Plaintiff counters that the suit
Southern
District
of
Texas,
for
the
convenience of her Houston attorney.6
II.
Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. Section 1404 (a) provides that" [f] or 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 or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented."
The Fifth Circuit
has stated that the threshold question under Section 1404(a)
is
whether the case could have been filed in the district to which
~
3
Id.
71.
4
Document No.9.
5
Id. at 2.
6 Document No. 16.
Alternatively, Plaintiff asks the Court to
transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. Id. at 1.
2
transfer is sought.
Cir. 2004).
public
II
203
(5th
District courts then look to a "number of private and
interest
weight,
In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201,
factors,
none
of
which
are
given
disposi ti ve
to determine whether a transfer serves "the convenience of
parties and witnesses."
The private factors are:
relative ease of access to sources of proof;
of compulsory process;
(3)
(1)
the
(2) the availability
the cost of obtaining attendance of
witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of
a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.
Id.
The public factors
are: (1) administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion;
(2)
the local interest in having localized interests decided at
home;
(3) the familiarity of the forum with the governing law; and
See id.
(4) the avoidance of unnecessary conflict of law problems.
(citing Piper Aircraft Co.
(1981)) .
forum.
v.
102 S.
Ct.
252,
258 n.
6
Courts should also consider the plaintiff's choice of
In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003).
III.
A.
Reyno,
Analysis
Venue is Proper in the District of New Jersey and the Northern
District of Illinois
Venue for an ERISA action is proper (1) "in the district where
the plan is administered,"
(3)
§
"where
a
1132(e)(2).
defendant
(2)
"where the breach took place," or
resides
Defendant,
a
or may
New
3
be
Jersey
found.
II
corporation
29
U.S.C.
with
its
headquarters in New Jersey,
7
administered the Plan from New Jersey.
Plaintiff does not dispute that venue is proper in the District of
New Jersey under the first prong of the ERISA venue provision. 8
Furthermore, Plaintiff does not dispute that the breach took place
in Illinois, where she lives and worked,9 making venue proper in
the Northern District of Illinois under the second prong. 10
B.
Convenience Factors
The cost of transporting witnesses and the availability of
compulsory process weigh strongly in favor of transfer.
and her treating physicians are located in Illinois.ll
potential witnesses are located in New Jersey. 12
Plaintiff
Defendant's
Plaintiff does not
identify any potential witness located in the Southern District of
Texas.
Because all potential witnesses reside outside of Texas,
7
Document No. 16 at 3.
8
See Document No. 16.
9
See id.; Document No. 1 ~ 2.
10 See Document No. 16.
Plaintiff devotes much of her Response
to arguing that venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas
under the third prong of the ERISA venue provision. Document No.
16 at 1-4. Defendant does not dispute that venue is proper in this
district.
See Document No. 19 at 1. Instead, Defendant contends
that venue is also proper in the District of New Jersey and the
Northern District of Illinois, and that the case should be
transferred to one of those districts for the convenience of the
parties.
11
Document No.9, ex. 2.
12
Document No. 9 at 6.
4
their appearances for trial in Houston would be inconvenient and
Moreover,
expensive.
unwilling witnesses
from New Jersey and
Illinois are beyond the subpoena power of this Court sitting in
Houston, Texas.
Plaintiff
See
FED.
argues
R. Crv. P.
that
the
45 (c) (3) (A)
Court
should
(ii) .
not
consider
the
locations of witnesses because this is an ERISA case and is likely
to be decided on the administrative record.
However,
at 5.
See Document No. 16
Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that at "all
relevant times, Defendant has been operating under an inherent and
structural conflict of interest as Defendant is liable for benefit
payments due to Plaintiff and each payment depletes Defendant's
assets,
II
that Defendant's
"determination was
influenced by its
conflict of interest," and that Defendant "failed to take active
steps to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy of
benefits determinations."
its
Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to
review Defendant's denial of benefits "under a de novo standard
of review."
witnesses
Given these allegations--which portend the need for
on
matters
beyond
the
scope
of
the
administrative
record--it is especially appropriate to consider the location of
witnesses, all of whom reside either in New Jersey or Illinois, and
none of whom resides in the Southern District of Texas.
Access
to
documents
and
records
also
favors
transfer.
Plaintiff's corporate documents are kept and maintained in its New
5
Jersey
Given
headquarters. 13
that
Plaintiff
is
a
citizen
of
Illinois, any records she possesses that are sources of proof are
most likely easily accessed in Illinois.
Plaintiff urges
the
Court
to retain the
case because her
attorney, Marc S. Whitehead, resides in this district. 14
~[t]he
for
However,
factor of 'location of counsel' is irrelevant and improper
consideration
venue."
See
in
determining
the
question
Horseshoe, 337 F.3d at 434.
of
transfer
of
Besides, the Court takes
judicial notice of a website evidently maintained by Mr. Whitehead,
www.disabilitydenials.com. which advertises that Mark Whitehead &
Associates is a
~national
law firm" that
~helps
people nationwide
get the disability benefits they are entitled to receive," and that
it assists clients
~[n]o
matter where [they] live."
Id.
In light
of these representations, one might consider it disingenuous for
Plaintiff's counsel to argue that Plaintiff's case be lodged in the
Southern District
Morris,
of
Texas,
so distant
from
her
residence
in
Illinois, simply to serve the convenience of her Houston
attorney.
The public interest factors also support transfer.
Federal
law applies to Plaintiff's claim, so the proposed transferee courts
are familiar with the governing law.
Furthermore,
the Southern
District of Texas has no local interest in deciding this case, as
13
Document NO.9 at 6.
14
See
Document No. 16 at 6.
6
the Plan was administered in New Jersey and allegedly breached
either in New Jersey or Illinois,
and no facts giving rise to
Plaintiff's claim occurred in Texas.
Given that this case involves
an Illinois citizen who suffered injury in Illinois, on balance the
Northern District of Illinois appears to have the greatest interest
See Sanders v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.,
in this matter.
813 F.
Supp.
529,
536
(S.D. Tex.
1993)
(Kent,
J.)
("[T]he Court
cannot escape the conclusion that the court with the greatest nexus
to this case is the one closest to the place where the Plaintiffs
were
injured,
not
the
place
where
the
savings
plan
was
administered. ")
In sum, the relevant factors and circumstances weigh in favor
of this case being transferred to the Northern District of Illinois
for
the
convenience
of
the
parties
and witnesses,
and
in the
interest of justice.
III.
Order
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant The Prudential Insurance Company of
America's Motion to Transfer Venue (Document No.9) is GRANTED and,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), this case is TRANSFERRED to
the United States District Court
for
the Northern District of
Illinois.
The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order of Transfer to the
Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District
7
of
Illinois,
Eastern Division,
in Chicago,
Illinois,
and shall
notify all parties and provide them with a true copy of this Order.
The Clerk will enter this Order and send copies to all counsel
of record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this
7~ay
of October, 2013.
w~~
TES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
.
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?