v.
Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company
Page ID #:142
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRED G., 10 Case No. 22-cv-01259-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS d e a in ro fila C fo tc irtsiD n re 1 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 A INN ST UH R IE nA M tN h iCB s EL a cU DC tiE O e of nMC e n aR P d vO A a en rS N rtS isY n. L g, I e vF t i E oal l .& a, t i oH nE sA oIL f. T tI hH n et Ero md puT lc oR t yio eA n eN RS eF tiE reR m ent Income Security Act of 1974 tin Uh tro N 18 (“ERISA”), Defendant Directors Guild of America—Producer Health Plan (the “Plan”) brings a motion to dismiss for improper venue, or in alternative to transfer the case to the Central District of California. The second defendant, Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company (“Anthem”), has not challenged venue. As explained below, venue is not proper in the Northern District of California as to the Plan, because none of the requirements of ERISA’s venue provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e), are met. In contrast, the Central District of California is a proper venue as to both Defendants. Further, even if the Northern District was a proper venue, transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would be appropriate because this litigation appears to have little connection to the Northern District. The Plan’s motion to transfer is granted, and the case will be transferred to the Central District of California.
[*2]Page ID #:143
II. Background Plaintiff Fred G. is a participant in the Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan. Mental health benefits under the Plan were administered by Anthem. Plaintiff’s son J.G., a beneficiary of the Plan, received mental health treatment at a residential treatment center, Catalsyt, in Utah. The Plan and Anthem approved an initial 21-day period of treatment at Catalyst, but denied Plaintiff’s claims for further treatment at Catalyst. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for recovery of benefits due and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. On April 8, 2022, the Plan filed this motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer venue. Anthem has not filed a motion to dismiss or otherwise challenged venue. III. Rule 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Transfer A. Legal Standard tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS d e a in ro fila C fo tc irtsiD n re 1 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 5 6 7
v c 1 v “a we 9 esn n7 heu u9 e e ew ) r.. e ia E T sT s t hRh ph f ee ri Ie l o S depF pAd ele ea f. d r ei iP n se n( t ir dgi ea f ) aodl f n “v mR h twe oau rr hs en nl ee st et r ih do L dee f ea b t sb hbC y u ee o i a lv r rp d i C s mll e p a onP n ae. r yc o v io i sf . a bc l ae Se e dsd vu ft mu en oa nr b uiGe u nl n i ea1 i ds s r2 h [p td .e( i r ]nb e ro ”eg n) v( d i3 t P , 9sh ”) ia a o Ug (ct n 2 o k .v S, )iv e n .“e Cn g wr u n . C U hes § e o .im r 1Ss . e, 1. o p C5 t 3t r h9i . 2oo e8 § (pn e b e Fs )r r (.
[*9]et 2io an d ) c2 . d t h4 (i h es 9e t)m o (d , oi is ) kss ,9 t pwrf 6i lo c ah(r t ci9 ci ew tm h ,h ”h p s Ce or tr ao i re r tp
(. et
3e shr ) e t h at tin Uh tro N 18 B. Discussion 19 Although 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) outlines multiple ways to establish venue in an ERISA 20 case, Plaintiff only argues that venue is proper because the Plan “may be found” in the Northern 21 District. Due to this concession, only the “may be found” prong of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) will be 22 addressed. In Varsic vs. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 607 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1979), the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant may be “found” in a district for the 23 purposes of the ERISA venue provision if the defendant’s “contacts with the [district] are 24 sufficient to satisfy the ‘minimum contacts’ test for personal jurisdiction[.]” 607 F.2d at 248-49 25 (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 26 Personal jurisdiction may be established via either general or specific jurisdiction. General 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 22-cv-01259-RS
Page ID #:144
1 jurisdiction is satisfied if the defendant’s interactions with the forum “are so ‘continuous and 2 systematic’ as to render them essentially at home[.]” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 3 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
Page ID #:145
in a district of participants in a [] plan renders the plan ‘found’ in the district.” Id. at 810. Like in this case, in Waeltz fewer than one percent of plan participants lived in the forum. The existence of a small number of plan participants, without any additional contacts, is insufficient to establish that a plan has purposefully directed activities towards a forum. Next, even if the presence of a small number of plan participants in the Northern District was enough to establish purposeful availment, the claim would not be “one which arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities.” Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287. Plaintiff does
not allege that he lives in the Northern District.2 Plaintiff has not identified any acts or events 9 relevant to this case that occurred in the Northern District. Finally, given the absence of any 10 connection between this action and the Northern District, the reasonableness prong of the specific 11 jurisdiction inquiry is also not satisfied. In short, the requirements of specific jurisdiction are not tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS d e a in ro fila C fo tc irtsiD n re 1 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 wt e i t“a h e( s riem h c m) a h(e il a nl i) tn i, d
n cs a i g osnt m h uda l i dtt sh su , s tin Uh tro N 18 whether to dismiss or transfer an action.” Luminence, LLC v. Leach, No. 20-CV-89-BEN (MDD), 2020 WL 3487822, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In general, transfer is preferable to dismissal. It saves the parties time, energy, money, and inconvenience.” Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Burns & Wilcox Ltd., No. CV-19-04854-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 4039119, at[*14] (D. Ariz. July 17, 2020) (citing 14D Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice & Proc. § 3827 (2020)). Here, transfer to the Central District of California is most efficient, and would save time and expense. Plaintiff does not dispute that venue is proper in the Central District. See
Page ID #:146
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, p.4 (arguing that “venue in this case is proper in both the Northern District and the Central District”). Indeed, it is “where the plan is administered.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2); Read Decl., ¶ 5 (“The Plan is wholly administered in Los Angeles.”). Finally, there is the question of how to handle the claims against Anthem, which has not challenged venue. “In the situation where venue is proper for one defendant but not for another and dismissal is inappropriate, the district court has a choice. One option is to transfer the entire case to another district that is proper for both defendants. Another alternative is to sever the claims, retaining jurisdiction over one defendant and transferring the case as to the other defendant to an appropriate district.” Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 296 (3d Cir. 1994). Generally speaking, “judicial economy is . . . better served in a single action in [a district] where venue will be proper for all defendants[.]” Fitzgerald v. Vogel, No. CIV. 02-7849, 2003 WL tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS d e a in ro fila C fo tc irtsiD n re 1 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 oee t9 i ft oi t , s Ce n2 r p a0 is lsr0 ieo f3 grp ov) re r. ae n r nH d ia t a ee bs dr i yt se .o
, t aI rv nt pahe s pnen t rs e u oP f aee pdl ra r i r in os i an : f tp g et dr h . o i te shp mePe r l ie a sa n sns t i i n it rs go e a tA ad hcmn eti t coih n ane i s m s t et o ,e i tr tn re h a dt e nh i sCe n f e e C L n re o t on rs a ft lr A t a hDl n e igD s ee ti nrls e i tt c isr rti . e c o t f
tin Uh tro N 18 IV. Motion to Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) In the alternative, even if venue was proper in the Northern District, transfer to the Central District would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “[A] district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought” if it is “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). As discussed above, this action could have been brought in the Central District of California. Whether transfer under § 1404(a) would also be appropriate thus turns on convenience and the interest of justice. The Ninth Circuit has identified nine factors to consider in this analysis:
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state 27 that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 22-cv-01259-RS
Page ID #:147
respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause 1 of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non- party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, multiple factors weigh in favor of transfer. It appears that most, if not all, of the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed in the Central District. All parties have more contacts with the Central District than the Northern District, given that the Plan is administered in the Central District, and Plaintiff even lists an address in the Central District in Plan documents, indicating a connection to that district. Further, as explained above, there are no contacts relating to Plaintiff’s cause of action in the Northern District, but there are plenty in the Central District. To the extent there are any issues with ease of access to sources of proof, access would likely be easier in the Central District, where the Plan is administered. Similarly, given the availability of tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS d e a in ro fila C fo tc irtsiD n re 1 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 Cas@|2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7of7 Page ID #:148
1 V. Conclusion 2 For all the foregoing reasons, the Plan’s motion is granted and this case will be transferred 3 || to the Central District of California. 5 || ITISSO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 10, 2022 RICHARD SEEBORG 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 qa 12 nes se 2B a6 eo i Qo Aes 15 $3 RR =Q 16 3 & 23 v7 55 Z 18