Devaux-Spitzley v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 1:2019cv00157 - Document 34 (S.D. Ohio 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 27 Motion to Transfer Case. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2019) [Transferred from California Northern on 2/27/2019.]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Devaux-Spitzley v. Prudential Insurance Company of America Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ROSLYN DEVAUX-SPITZLEY, 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE v. 9 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 18-cv-04436-JST Re: ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 Defendant. 12 Before the Court is Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America’s motion to 13 14 transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff Devaux-Spitzley opposes 15 the motion. ECF No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 A. Factual Background 18 Plaintiff Roslyn Devaux-Spitzley brings two causes of action under the Employee 19 Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3), against 20 Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”). See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 11-23. 21 Plaintiff, a former employee of JPMorgan Chase Bank, discontinued work in February 22 2016 after a meniscus tear. Id. ¶ 5. She unsuccessfully attempted to return to work in May 2016 23 and has since been unemployed. Id. 24 Due to chronic pain and other complications related to her orthopedic disabilities, diabetes, 25 and heart disease, Plaintiff filed for disability benefits with Prudential Insurance as a participant in 26 the Chase Bank Employee Long Term Disability Plan. Id. ¶¶ 3-7. Prudential initially denied 27 Plaintiff’s claim for lack of eligibility. Id. ¶ 7. After Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, 28 Prudential determined that she was an eligible participant in the Plan, but concluded that she was Dockets.Justia.com 1 not disabled from working as long as she was able to take a fifteen-minute break after every forty- 2 five minutes of working. Id. 3 4 forty-five minutes out of each hour in an eight-hour work day amounted to sub-sedentary capacity 5 or total disability. Id. ¶ 8. Prudential granted itself a 45-day extension of time to review the 6 second-level appeal. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Prudential advising it that its unilateral 7 grant of an extension violated the requirements of the ERISA Claims Regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 8 2560.503-1. Id. Plaintiff now claims that her voluntary second-level appeal is “deemed denied” 9 as a matter of law because of Prudential’s non-compliance with the Claims Regulation, leaving her 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff then filed a voluntary second-level appeal, asserting that the ability to work only free to pursue her remedies in court. Id. On the merits, Plaintiff alleges that Prudential violated ERISA § 503, codified at 29 U.S.C. 12 § 1133, and the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1. These provisions require employee 13 benefit plans to follow certain minimum procedures and provide “adequate notice in writing” to 14 participants whose claims for benefits under a plan have been denied. Id. ¶¶ 12-14. Plaintiff 15 further alleges that Prudential failed to afford her a statutorily required “reasonable opportunity to 16 receive a full and fair review” after her claim was denied. Id. ¶ 13. Finally, Plaintiff claims 17 Prudential breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by, among other things, awarding benefits to 18 other Plan participants under circumstances similar to her own, even though it denied benefits to 19 her. See id. ¶¶ 18-22. 20 B. Procedural History 21 Plaintiff filed her complaint on July 23, 2018. See Compl. Prudential filed an answer on 22 September 14, 2018. ECF No. 14. The case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge 23 Elizabeth D. Laporte and was reassigned to the undersigned judge on September 5, 2018. ECF 24 Nos. 3, 12. At the initial case management conference on November 14, 2018, the Court set a 25 deadline of January 11, 2019 for Prudential to file its motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1404. ECF No. 22. Prudential moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio on 27 January 8, 2019. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 29. Prudential filed its 28 reply on January 28, 2019. ECF No. 30. 2 1 II. “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may 2 United States District Court Northern District of California LEGAL STANDARD 3 transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 4 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of Section 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time, energy and 5 money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and 6 expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quotation omitted). A motion for 7 transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court and must be determined on an 8 individualized basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) 9 (“Under § 1404(a), the district court has discretion ‘to adjudicate motions for transfer according to 10 an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” (quoting Stewart 11 Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988))). As the moving party, Defendants bear the burden of showing that transfer is warranted. Id. 12 13 The statute defines three factors that the Court must consider: the convenience of the parties, the 14 convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Ninth Circuit 15 has also listed the following additional factors that a court may consider: 16 (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause 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. 17 18 19 20 21 Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99. 22 III. 23 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Prudential asks the Court to take judicial notice of the United States District Court 24 statistics for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2018, available at: 25 https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_distprofile0930.2018.pdf. ECF 26 No. 28. Because the statistics “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 27 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), the Court will grant the request. 28 3 1 IV. The Court first determines that Plaintiff could have brought her claim in the Southern 2 3 District of Ohio, a fact that neither party disputes. ECF Nos. 27 at 5; 29 at 2. An ERISA action 4 may be brought “in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or 5 where a defendant resides or may be found.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Plaintiff could have 6 brought her claims in the Southern District of Ohio because it is the place where the alleged 7 breach took place. ECF No. 27 at 5; see also Compl. ¶ 3 (“Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent 8 herein was, a resident of Reynoldsburg, Franklin County, Ohio.”). Turning next to the factors the Court must consider in ruling on this motion, Prudential 9 United States District Court Northern District of California DISCUSSION 10 argues that the following facts or factors support transfer: the convenience of parties, witnesses, 11 and ease of access to evidence all favor transfer to the Southern District of Ohio; Ohio has a 12 greater local interest in the action because Plaintiff resides there; and relative court congestion is 13 lower in Ohio where there is a lower civil-filing-per-judge ratio than in the Northern District. See 14 ECF No. 27 at 6-8. The remaining factors, according to Prudential, are neutral. Id. at 8. 15 Prudential also argues that Plaintiff’s choice of forum, ordinarily a factor weighing against 16 transfer, is less important here because Plaintiff does not reside in the Northern District and her 17 claims have no connection to this forum. In response, Plaintiff argues that the Court should afford deference to an ERISA plaintiff’s 18 19 choice of forum; that the ease of access to evidence and witnesses is irrelevant because discovery 20 is limited to the already-produced administrative record; and that the interests of justice weigh in 21 favor of keeping the current venue, particularly in light of Prudential’s delay in filing this motion, 22 and the relative burden and cost to Plaintiff if the matter were transferred. See generally ECF No. 23 29. 24 After examining the relevant factors, the Court agrees that transfer is warranted. 25 A. 26 In ERISA cases, the plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded great deference. Jacobsen v. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum 27 Hughes Aircraft Co., 105 F.3d 1288, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 432 28 (1999). However, a plaintiff’s chosen forum receives considerably less weight when she does not 4 1 reside there and the operative facts occurred elsewhere. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th 2 Cir. 1987). Prudential argues that because Plaintiff does not reside in the Northern District, and 3 none of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District, the Court should 4 afford her choice of forum less weight. ECF No. 27 at 6. When the plaintiff resides outside the forum and the operative facts took place outside the United States District Court Northern District of California 5 6 forum, courts in this district transfer venue “even in ERISA cases when other factors favor 7 transfer.” Ridenour v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-03051-LB, 2015 WL 8 6674662, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015) (citing Frias v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., Case No. 14-cv- 9 03146-TEH, 2014 WL 5364105, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2014)); see also Nozolino v. Harford 10 Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 12-cv-04314-JST, 2013 WL 2468350, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2013) 11 (transferring venue where ERISA plaintiff had not shown that the Northern District had “any 12 nexus to the operative facts in [her] case”); M.K. v. Visa Cigna Network POS Plan, No. 12-CV- 13 04652-LHK, 2013 WL 2146609, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2013) (granting “minimal deference” 14 to plaintiff’s choice of forum in an ERISA action where she was not a resident of the selected 15 forum, the breach took place elsewhere, and key decisions regarding the benefits denial all took 16 place outside the Northern District). 17 Here, Plaintiff resides now and did reside at all relevant times in Ohio, and none of the 18 operative facts in her complaint took place in the Northern District of California. The medical 19 providers involved in Plaintiff’s claim were located in Chicago, Ohio, and Los Angeles. ECF No. 20 27-1 ¶ 11. Independent file reviews during the claim administration were conducted by doctors in 21 Connecticut and Colorado. Id. ¶ 14. Other Prudential employees responsible for reviewing 22 Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits claim were located in various cities across the United 23 States, none of which is in the Northern District. Id. ¶ 15. In sum, nothing about Plaintiff’s 24 medical treatment or the administration of her claim has any connection to the Northern District. 25 Plaintiff’s sole connection to the Northern District is that her counsel is located here. See ECF No. 26 29-2. 27 28 Given the lack of any significant connection between this district and Devaux-Spitzley’s claims, the Court affords minimal deference to Devaux-Spitzley’s choice of forum. 5 1 B. 2 Section 1404(a) provides for transfer to a more convenient forum, “not to a forum likely to 3 prove equally convenient or inconvenient.” Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Childers, No. 5:10-cv-03571- 4 JF/HRL, 2011 WL 566812, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 646). 5 Transfer “should not be granted if the effect is simply to shift the inconvenience to the plaintiff.” 6 Id. (citing Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)). 7 “Defendants must show that the balance of conveniences weighs heavily in favor of transfer in 8 order to overcome the strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Id. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California Convenience of the Parties Plaintiff argues that her lack of means compared to Prudential favors keeping the action in 10 the Northern District. ECF No. 29 at 6. She asserts that if the case is transferred to Ohio, her 11 counsel will incur substantial travel expenses which will “ultimately be borne by the Plaintiff 12 herself, who is in no position to make unnecessary expenditures for attorney airfare and hotels.” 13 Id. at 5. Plaintiff adds that despite exercising diligence, she was unable to find local counsel in 14 Ohio. ECF No. 29-1 ¶ 2. She represents that she retained Creitz & Serebin LLP “based upon their 15 excellent reputation” and filed suit in San Francisco because that is where her attorneys reside and 16 “doing so would minimize attorney travel costs and expenses.” Id. ¶ 3. 17 Prudential responds that Plaintiff’s claimed inability to find an ERISA attorney in Ohio “is 18 counter to the information in the administrative record.” ECF No. 30 at 6. In support, Prudential 19 cites to a letter it received requesting a copy of Plaintiff’s claim file from attorney Claire Bushorn 20 Danzl, whose firm is in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October 2017. Id. About one month later, Danzl 21 notified Prudential she was no longer representing Plaintiff. Id. Prudential concludes that 22 “Plaintiff chose to retain a lawyer in San Francisco despite multiple local alternatives, and cannot 23 now use the costs associated with that choice to argue against a transfer of venue.” Id. at 7. 24 As Prudential points out, “[t]he convenience of counsel is not considered for purposes of 25 deciding whether a venue is convenient for the purposes of § 1404(a).” Guy v. Hartford Group 26 Life Ins. Co., No. C 11-3453 SI, 2011 WL 5525965, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). Courts in 27 this district regularly grant transfer motions where the plaintiff’s only connection to the district of 28 filing is the presence of counsel. See, e.g., Smith v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. C 11-2559 SI, 2011 6 1 WL 3904131, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011) (granting transfer in spite of plaintiff’s allegation 2 that, due to the location of counsel, “filing in this district is the most economically viable option”); 3 Frias, 2014 WL 5364105, at *4 (granting transfer and finding that the “fact that the parties have 4 chosen California lawyers” was of no consequence). United States District Court Northern District of California 5 In addition to the convenience of her counsel, Plaintiff makes a separate argument about 6 the additional cost to her of transfer to Ohio, given that her lawyer would need to travel to that 7 forum to litigate the case. The cost to the parties is a relevant consideration for the Court. See In 8 re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1081 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (observing that “[i]n deciding 9 whether to transfer, the Court must be careful to avoid a transfer that ‘would merely shift rather 10 than eliminate’ the inconvenience of costs,” and noting that “corporations are better-equipped than 11 individuals to absorb increased litigation costs”). Here, however, the additional costs are a 12 function of Plaintiff’s having selected a San Francisco lawyer. Given that the Court does not 13 credit Plaintiff’s statement that she was unable to find a lawyer in Ohio, to weigh this factor 14 against transfer would put the cart before the horse, and incentivize future plaintiffs to hire in- 15 district lawyers as a way of fending off meritorious motions to transfer. In ERISA cases, “[t]he 16 fact that the parties have chosen California lawyers is of no consequence.” Frias, 2014 WL 17 5364105, at *4. Recharacterizing the issue as one of party expense does not change this principle. 18 19 Accordingly, the Court concludes that under the circumstances of this case, the question of expense is neutral. 20 C. Convenience of the Witnesses and Ease of Access to the Evidence 21 Prudential argues that to the extent medical providers are needed as witnesses, none of 22 them are located in the Northern District. ECF No. 27 at 6. Plaintiff responds that this argument 23 is a “red herring” as discovery in ERISA claims is limited to the administrative record, which has 24 already been produced in electronic form. ECF No. 29 at 5 (citing ECF No. 17 at 3). In reply, 25 Prudential cites to several ERISA cases in which the plaintiff made similar arguments regarding 26 discovery being limited to the administrative record, but the court nevertheless weighed the 27 potential for additional discovery in favor of transfer. See ECF No. 30 at 3-4. 28 Plaintiff is correct that in an ERISA action, the Court’s review is likely to be limited to the 7 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 administrative record alone, without the need for additional evidence or witnesses. But as the 2 Ninth Circuit has noted, although in most cases only the evidence before the plan administrator 3 should be considered, the district court has discretion to allow evidence not before the 4 administrator “when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to 5 conduct an adequate de novo review.” Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability 6 Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1995). Although Prudential has not established that 7 additional evidence will be necessary, the fact that Plaintiff remains entitled to discovery into 8 Prudential’s assembly of the administrative record creates at least some likelihood that additional 9 discovery may occur. See ECF No. 17 at 3. Because any such evidence would not be found in the 10 Northern District, this factor slightly favors transfer. See ECF No. 27 at 7 (“Prudential’s place of 11 business is in New Jersey, Plaintiff’s claim was not administered in this District, none of the 12 Prudential employees primarily responsible for reviewing Plaintiff’s claim are located in this 13 District, and neither of the independent peer reviewers who reviewed Plaintiff’s records for 14 Prudential are located in this District.”); see also Frias, 2014 WL 5364105, at *4 (finding that “the 15 convenience of witnesses weighs in favor of transfer because of the potential for additional 16 discovery,” which would come from the district where plaintiff received medical treatment and 17 was denied benefits); Visa Cigna, 2013 WL 2146609, at *4 (concluding that because both the 18 plaintiff and the operative facts were located in another forum, the convenience of the witnesses 19 was “neutral, at best, and may even weigh in favor of granting” venue transfer). 20 The Court agrees that the convenience of the witnesses weighs slightly in favor of transfer 21 here. None of the potential witnesses involved in Plaintiff’s claim administration or medical 22 treatment are located in the Northern District and thus, transfer would not inconvenience them. 23 Similarly, the ease of access to evidence weighs slightly in favor of transfer because the 24 administrative record was neither created nor compiled in the Northern District, meaning that any 25 additional discovery would be for evidence outside the Northern District. 26 Accordingly, this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. 27 D. 28 Because ERISA is a federal statute, the Northern District of California and the Southern Familiarity of Each Forum with the Applicable Law 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 District of Ohio are equally equipped to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff does not argue to 2 the contrary. This factor is thus neutral. See Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc., No. 12-CV-0256- 3 YGR, 2012 WL 3727323, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2012). 4 E. Feasibility of Consolidation with Other Claims 5 As there are no pending actions this case could be consolidated with, this factor is neutral. 6 F. 7 In evaluating the interests of justice, a court may consider public interest factors, including Local Interest in the Controversy 8 local interests in deciding local controversies. Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. Prudential 9 argues that Ohio has a greater local interest in the controversy because Plaintiff resides there and 10 did reside there when her benefits were denied, and because there is no connection between this 11 District and any of the parties. ECF No. 27 at 7. Plaintiff makes no argument to the contrary. 12 The Court agrees that Ohio has a greater local interest in the controversy because Plaintiff 13 resides there, her alleged denial of benefits took place there, the benefits if received would have 14 been paid there, and the events giving rise to her causes of action have no connection to the 15 Northern District. See Frias, 2014 WL 5364105, at *5 (finding that “in light of the much more 16 substantial ties between the [transferee] state of Arizona and the operative facts of this case . . . 17 California’s interest in this matter is greatly outweighed by that of Arizona”). Further, the 18 Southern District of Ohio has an interest in deciding cases involving its residents. See Ridenour, 19 2015 WL 6674662, at *7 (noting the state of Virginia’s interest in deciding cases involving its 20 residents, where the plaintiff resided in the Eastern District of Virginia but filed in the Northern 21 District of California). In this case, California has no comparable interest. 22 The Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 23 G. 24 According to the caseload statistics judicially noticed at Prudential’s request, see ECF No. Relative Court Congestion and Time to Trial in Each Forum 25 28, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2018, there were 552 civil filings per judge in 26 the Northern District of California, compared to 338 civil filings per judge in the Southern District 27 of Ohio. ECF No. 27 at 8. Thus, Prudential argues that the relative court congestion between the 28 Northern District of California and Southern District of Ohio favors transfer. Id. 9 The dockets of this court are clearly more congested than those of the Ohio court. “[T]he 1 2 administrative concern of docket congestion is given only minimal weight in this District.” Frias, 3 2014 WL 5364105, at *6. “Nonetheless, what little weight such a consideration should be given 4 in this case weighs in favor of transfer.” Id. Plaintiff argues that Prudential’s statistics are irrelevant because transferring the case to United States District Court Northern District of California 5 6 Ohio would require the case management and scheduling process to “start all over, throwing the 7 process back by at least six months.” Id. The Court is not persuaded that transfer would cause 8 significant delay. This action was filed approximately seven months ago. See Compl. After the 9 initial case management conference, and at the parties’ request, the Court issued a scheduling 10 order that included time for the Court to resolve Defendant’s transfer motion. ECF No. 23. 11 Except for that scheduling order and the present order, little has happened in the case. Moreover, 12 the significantly lower caseload-per-judge in the Southern District of Ohio also suggests a 13 potentially more expeditious process there. In light of these facts, the Court concludes that “the 14 efficiencies sought to be achieved by a timely venue transfer” are not “significantly undermined 15 by the extent of litigation that has already occurred in this case.” Eggers v. Campagnolo N.A., 16 Inc., No. 08CV0198 JM(LSP), 2009 WL 311124, at *2 (denying motion to transfer where parties 17 had already filed multiple substantial motions, engaged in significant discovery, and engaged in 18 early neutral evaluation and a settlement conference). The Court finds this factor neutral. 19 20 V. CONCLUSION 21 The majority of the relevant factors either weigh in favor of transfer or are neutral. There 22 is no potential discovery that would occur in the Northern District, nor are witnesses located here. 23 Plaintiff’s choice of forum merits little deference because she is not a resident of the Northern 24 District and her claims have no connection to this forum. Ohio has a greater local interest in the 25 controversy because Plaintiff resides there and her benefits were allegedly denied there. The 26 Southern District of Ohio is less congested than this District, and there has not yet been extensive 27 litigation in this forum that would suggest significant delay if the matter were transferred. Boiled 28 down to its essence, the only factor tying this case to the Northern District of California is the 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 location of Plaintiff’s lawyer. On balance, the Court concludes that transfer is warranted. For the reasons above, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 26, 2019 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
