Todd R. et al v. Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Change Venue to the Western District of Washington. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/7/17 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
TODD R., SUZANNE R., and LILLIAN R.,
AND ORDER GRANTING
 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Case No. 1:17-cv-00058-DN
PREMERA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
District Judge David Nuffer
Plaintiffs seek to recover benefits under ERISA. Defendant Premera Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Alaska (Premara) has moved to change venue to the Western District of Washington
because that is where the plan is administered and because that is where the defendant maintains
its principal place of business. 1 Plaintiffs did not respond in opposition.2
Based on the facts as represented in the Complaint 3 and the Declaration of Gwendolyn C.
Payton, 4 the Western District of Washington is the proper venue.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 “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” if it will better serve “the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Memorandum in Support, docket no. 10, filed May 31, 2017.
Under DUCivR 7-1(b)(3), “[a] memorandum opposing motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), 12(c), and
58 must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days after service of the motion or within such time as allowed by the
court.” Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Opposition was due June 28, 2017.
Complaint, docket no. 2, filed April 28, 2017.
Declaration of Gwendolyn C. Payton in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Payton Declaration),
docket no. 11, filed May 31, 2017.
interest of justice.” And under ERISA’s venue provision, venue is proper “in the district where
the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be
found.” 5 The 10th Circuit has not addressed how, under this statute, to determine “where the
breach took place.” In Island View Residential Treatment Center v. Kaiser Permanente, 6 the
Utah district court held that “any breach of duty owed under the plan, occurs at the place where
the plan participant resides. The place is the location where the payment is to be made, even
though the services may have been provided at an out-of-state location.” 7
Plaintiffs reside at Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska. 8 Premara is the plan
administrator. 9 Premara is headquartered and incorporated in the state of Washington. 10
Therefore, because the plan is administered and the defendant resides in Washington, and
because other judges in this district have found the breach takes place where the plan participant
resides, 11 the case should be transferred to the Western District of Washington.
29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2).
Island View Residential Treatment Center v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 1:09-cv-3 CW, 2009 WL 2614682 (D. Utah
August 21, 2009); Jon N. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., No. 1:07CV137 DAK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
35464(D. Utah April 29, 2008).
Id. at *2.
Complaint ¶ 1.
Complaint ¶ 3.
Payton Declaration ¶ 2.
No. 1:09-cv-3 CW, 2009 WL 2614682 (D. Utah August 21, 2009).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and
Memorandum in Support 12 is GRANTED. This case will be transferred to the Western District
Court in Washington.
Signed July 7, 2017.
BY THE COURT
District Judge David Nuffer
Docket no. 10, filed May 31, 2017.
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?