The opinion
Case 2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
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
19 motion to dismiss for improper venue, or in alternative to transfer the case to the Central District
20 of California. The second defendant, Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company
21 (“Anthem”), has not challenged venue. As explained below, venue is not proper in the Northern
22 District of California as to the Plan, because none of the requirements of ERISA’s venue
23 provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e), are met. In contrast, the Central District of California is a proper
24 venue as to both Defendants. Further, even if the Northern District was a proper venue, transfer
25 under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would be appropriate because this litigation appears to have little
26 connection to the Northern District. The Plan’s motion to transfer is granted, and the case will be
27 transferred to the Central District of California.
28
Case 2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:143
1 II. Background
2 Plaintiff Fred G. is a participant in the Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan. Mental
3 health benefits under the Plan were administered by Anthem. Plaintiff’s son J.G., a beneficiary of
4 the Plan, received mental health treatment at a residential treatment center, Catalsyt, in Utah. The
5 Plan and Anthem approved an initial 21-day period of treatment at Catalyst, but denied Plaintiff’s
6 claims for further treatment at Catalyst. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for
7 recovery of benefits due and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. On April 8, 2022, the Plan
8 filed this motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer venue. Anthem has not filed a motion to
9 dismiss or otherwise challenged venue.
10 III. Rule 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Transfer
11 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
1
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
2
i3
t
P
,
9sh
”)
ia
a
o
Ug
(ct
n
2 o
k
.v
S,
)iv
e
n
2
.“e
Cn
g
9
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
1
)r
r
(.
1
et
2
2io
3
an
d
)
c2
. d
t
h4
(i
h
es
9e
t)m
1
o (d
,
2
oi is
4
)
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
2
Case 2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 7 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)).
4 Plaintiff makes no argument that general jurisdiction applies here, thus leaving only the issue of
whether specific jurisdiction applies.1 There are three requirements to establish specific
5
jurisdiction: “(1) [t]he nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction
6
with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of
7
conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws[;] (2)
8
[t]he claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related
9
activities[;] and (3) [e]xercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Varsic, 607 F.2d at 249
10
(quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir.
11
1977)).
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
i
a
a
nn
c
c
e
t
t
vt
i
ih
v
v
ee
ri
i
t
t
si
iN
e
e
pA
s
so
e
rp
ci
it
n
np
ih
f
l
e
it
ty
eh
hri
sn
e
in
s
wg
D
N
N ht
i
o
oh
s art
re
ttr
t
h
i
ths
c
e
ht
et
ra
o.
rn n
snF
ed
Di
D
a
r
“isr
i
asd
t
st
c,
t
r
tra
t
i
iih
cs vct
e
it.s
r
t. e
”P
ie
et
l
Oi
sao
s
”iu
p
nl
at
pi
t
t
ri
oi
t
efn
l
sf
.e
iV
Ua
ti
irna
o
ngdr
n
lus
i i c
kei tc
oa
s
e
t
a
t
Mi
ihn
o
nad
n
o
Bt
t D
t
i“
oh
o[
ha
a
nb
at
t
]a
t
rt
y
o
h
aD
ie
Dt
vi
sP
.s
i
c
so
Bl
ma, w ant
i
ch
n sh
ke
sa
uar , de
s
sp
ma
p
H.4r
u
i
oe
.sr
s
sPpn
i
po
loo
a
.s
nt
i
Me n,s
f
tu
t
eu
ihf
f
dl
ef
fl
.i
y
,
c
P
B
hi
c
l
ee
oao
nn
wnn
et d
ec
fc
ivu
oo
tec
nn
Prt
dt
e
,
la
u
adc
c
n t ts
,s
tin Uh
tro
390 F. Supp. 2d 957 (C.D. Cal. 2005), where the plan at issue pre-certified and case-managed
N 18 treatment in the forum district and paid partial benefits to a hospital in the forum, Plaintiff alleges
19 no such facts concerning any affirmative actions by the Plan towards the Northern District.
20 Plaintiff argues “[t]he Plan acknowledges that a percentage of its members are residents of the San
21 Francisco Bay Area” and thus “the Plan ‘may be found’ in the Northern District.” Opposition to
22 Motion to Dismiss, p.5. Less than one percent of Plan members, however, live in Northern
23 California. See Declaration of Lisa Read (“Read Decl.”), ¶ 2. In Waeltz v. Delta Pilots Retirement
24 Plan, 301 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2002), the Seventh Circuit rejected the notion that “the mere presence
25
26 1 Further, as described in the discussion of specific jurisdiction, the Plan’s contacts with the
Northern District of California are minimal, and thus insufficient to demonstrate general
27 jurisdiction.
28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-01259-RS
3
Case 2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:145
1 in a district of participants in a [] plan renders the plan ‘found’ in the district.” Id. at 810. Like in
2 this case, in Waeltz fewer than one percent of plan participants lived in the forum. The existence of
3 a small number of plan participants, without any additional contacts, is insufficient to establish
4 that a plan has purposefully directed activities towards a forum.
5 Next, even if the presence of a small number of plan participants in the Northern District
6 was enough to establish purposeful availment, the claim would not be “one which arises out of or
7 results from the defendant’s forum-related activities.” Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287. Plaintiff does
8
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
s
t
v
o
hha
e
r
aet
n
vii
fs
u
eP
f
e
ili
bta
e
i
en
bd
s
I
e
e .
fm
ni
T
m
v
i n
ba
eh
p
y
rne
t
or
hu
on
ua eepob
g
iet
is
hn
sre
b
t .
t
.n
i
ee
”mc
r “
e
2e
pf
s
8o
ro
t
o
uf Uop nm
f
.ed
Sjri
”
u
. n
Ci si
ni tnm
.
i
t
c
§t
hu
eh
em
1,i s
4td r c
0id
aso
6ni
tsn
(r
st
ait
fr
ca
)ei
t
.c
c
r
“t
t
w
ss
Cw
u ha oceis
t
h
ur ht
e
ro
i
c
t n
t
sa ht
sh
t
he
ehe
a
e
c
t
vN
oam
es
o
ae
ser
n
i at
i
gyh
sn
n e
i
df
inr
i
fin
lg
ise
c t D
d
ro
ai,
nfi c s
t
tt2
h
t
dr
o9
ei ir c
sU
dt
d
c
i.
ro
isS
v
etf
r
t.
i
C
iiC
s
oc
i.a
ot
n
§l
nc
i i f
o
n1
io
u
n
1r
dr
n
3
wt
e i
2
t“a
h
e(
s riem
h
c
m)
a
h(e
2
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),
19 2020 WL 3487822, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In
20 general, transfer is preferable to dismissal. It saves the parties time, energy, money, and
21 inconvenience.” Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Burns & Wilcox Ltd., No. CV-19-04854-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL
22 4039119, at *14 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2020) (citing 14D Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice & Proc. §
23 3827 (2020)). Here, transfer to the Central District of California is most efficient, and would save
24 time and expense. Plaintiff does not dispute that venue is proper in the Central District. See
25
26
2 The Plan notes that his address on file with the Plan is in the Central District, but Plaintiff denies
27 that he lives in the Central District, without ever stating where he lives.
28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-01259-RS
4
Case 2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:146
1 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, p.4 (arguing that “venue in this case is proper in both the
2 Northern District and the Central District”). Indeed, it is “where the plan is administered.” 29
3 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2); Read Decl., ¶ 5 (“The Plan is wholly administered in Los Angeles.”).
4 Finally, there is the question of how to handle the claims against Anthem, which has not
5 challenged venue. “In the situation where venue is proper for one defendant but not for another
6 and dismissal is inappropriate, the district court has a choice. One option is to transfer the entire
7 case to another district that is proper for both defendants. Another alternative is to sever the
8 claims, retaining jurisdiction over one defendant and transferring the case as to the other defendant
9 to an appropriate district.” Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 296 (3d Cir.
10 1994). Generally speaking, “judicial economy is . . . better served in a single action in [a district]
11 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
2
f
J
C
ao
u
c0
ar
td3
l
i iit
o5
fch
n6
oie
a
2
r tnls
o, I
a
nie
a
am
tc
t
h.
s
o
u*
e en
m3
Cr
o e(
m
,
ea
E
t
ns
y
h.
o
tD
e
rwn
a .
P
l
ot
P
lh
Du
aa
a
nl
i.
t
d
s ’ J
t v
sa
b
r e
imn
e
cn.
t
bu
o
2
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)
19 In the alternative, even if venue was proper in the Northern District, transfer to the Central
20 District would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “[A] district court may transfer any civil
21 action to any other district or division where it might have been brought” if it is “[f]or the
22 convenience of the parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). As
23 discussed above, this action could have been brought in the Central District of California. Whether
24 transfer under § 1404(a) would also be appropriate thus turns on convenience and the interest of
25 justice. The Ninth Circuit has identified nine factors to consider in this analysis:
26
(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
5
Case 2:22-cv-05710-FLA-GJS Document 28 Filed 08/10/22 Page 6 of 7 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-
2 party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.
3 Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).
4 Here, multiple factors weigh in favor of transfer. It appears that most, if not all, of the
5 relevant agreements were negotiated and executed in the Central District. All parties have more
6 contacts with the Central District than the Northern District, given that the Plan is administered in
7 the Central District, and Plaintiff even lists an address in the Central District in Plan documents,
8 indicating a connection to that district. Further, as explained above, there are no contacts relating
9 to Plaintiff’s cause of action in the Northern District, but there are plenty in the Central District.
10 To the extent there are any issues with ease of access to sources of proof, access would likely be
11 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
r
m
c
l
fie
oo
tm
a
rim
g
uyo
a
mp nt tae
e
o
r
a
t
e
Td
i
n
ndae
h
d rp
te
ti
h
too
s
ho
ee
s
et
ti
,
h
Nh
t
obi
e
eo
o
pu
rNn
r
et
tf s
rhoi
a ata
ecr td
tn
rt
ih
o
vnod
e
r
e e Dsrp
s
n
f r
l
i
a a
eo
sD
cp
tac
trp
nie
sis
c
e
e
t
os
td
a
r
l
,
cir
ii
c
b
cg n
t
t
uuhg
h
.
rtts
a
rl,
it
y
e n i
dm
s
i
a
s
n
oo
nu
ur
P
e
e
E
tls
s
a
Ro
ic
i
df
n
Io
eSttn
ih
A
tfc
he
fe
’
ecrr
s
en
a
ffl
osi aen
e
rvvg u “oa mwo
n
r f
,t
o
h
tt
w
r
e
hh
rai
ee
et
p
n
Ca apev
oes
pa
a
us
li
e
r
a
rl a
ts
in
n b
ma
e
ti
ur
il afei
t
ft yr y
i
a
dn
a lo
o
.
ft
f fePh osc
e
l
r ao
n
dC
im
o
n
he
ttp
in
i
r
sfu
t
e
frl
c
sas
d
hio
l
di
o
dr
D
e
iy
cci
i
esp
nht
r
o
[r
to
oi
hocc feste
,
e
s
as
ts
o
tin Uh
tro
N 18 forum] considerably less weight.” Ansari v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., No.
19 LACV1904068JAKJPRX, 2019 WL 6729716, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019) (internal quotation
20 marks and citation omitted). Further, while costs may be lower in the Central District due to
21 proximity to witnesses, both the Plan and Plaintiff have retained San Francisco-based lawyers. As
22 for the state familiar with the governing law, the factor is neutral since this case involves the
23 application of federal law, and even if transferred the case would remain in the same state.
24 In conclusion, weighing the factors shows that transferring the case to the Central District
25 of California would be “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of
26 justice[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). If dismissal or transfer was not required under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)
27 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would be appropriate.
28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-01259-RS
6
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
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
98 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE No. 22-cv-01259-RS