Opinion
Case No.: 6:18-cv-01587-MK
03-01-2019
ALBERTO BERTOMEU, Plaintiff, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue KASUBHAI, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Alberto Bertomeu filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., seeking to recover unpaid benefits and be instated into a group long-term disability plan and to be instated into a group life insurance plan, both issued by defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to transfer venue (ECF 13). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to transfer is DENIED.
"[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ] does not address the merits of the case ... it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority" under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive."); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) ("[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016)(same); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(same).
Background
Plaintiff resides in Minnesota. He worked for an international company headquartered in Italy, with an office incorporated in Pennsylvania and a human resources division in Eugene, Oregon. When not traveling for work, Plaintiff worked from his home office in Minnesota. Plaintiff's employer offered long-term disability insurance and life insurance benefits through Defendant. Defendant "delivered" the policies in Oregon, subject to the laws of Oregon. ECF 22, Ex. B. Defendant is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in the United States in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts.
An ERISA action "may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Defendant concedes that the plan was administered in Oregon but moves to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the grounds that "the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice are best served by transferring this action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota." ECF 13, ¶ 8. Plaintiff objects.
Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[f]or the convenience of the 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 . . . ." 28 USC § 1404(a). To determine whether transfer is proper, the court engages in a two-step analysis. First, the court determines whether the action might have been brought in the transferee district. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). If so, then the court considers the facts of the case and whether considerations of convenience and fairness favor transfer. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). In making this determination, the court weighs several factors: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience of the witnesses; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestions and the time of trial of each forum. Robertson v. Standard Ins. Co. ,2014 WL 7240682 at *2 (D. Oregon 2014). The district court has broad discretion to adjudicate motions to transfer venue and must make its determination on a case-by-case basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the transfer bears the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate, supported by a strong showing of inconvenience to justify upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).
Analysis
This Court must first determine whether the case could have been brought in Minnesota - the forum to which Defendant seeks transfer. An ERISA claim "may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Plaintiff resides in Minnesota and resided there when Defendant denied his claim. At least one court in this district has found that the place where a plaintiff expects to receive benefits is the place "where the breach took place" for ERISA jurisdiction purposes. Smart v. Southwest Carpenters Pension Plan, 2014 WL 412568 (D. Oregon 2014); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Plaintiff does not dispute that he could have brought this case in Minnesota. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff could have brought this case in Minnesota.
Next, the Court must consider whether convenience and fairness tip the scales enough towards transfer to disturb Plaintiff's choice of forum. As an initial matter, the Court notes that ERISA claims are governed by federal law and "this Court presumes that all federal courts have equal familiarity with the applicable law." Robertson v. Standard Ins. Co., 2014 WL 7240682 at *3 (D. Oregon 2014). Additionally, in ERISA cases "a district court may [generally] review only the administrative record when considering whether the plan administrator abused its discretion[.]" Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 970 (9th Cir.2006). Both parties have indicated that it is unlikely any discovery will be warranted in this matter. ECF 13 at 10; ECF 19 at 11. Therefore, considerations of applicable law, convenience of the witnesses, and ease of access to the evidence are neutral. Likewise, the court is not aware of any other related pending claims that might be consolidated with this claim, nor of any evidence suggesting that the District of Minnesota has a significantly lighter case load than the District of Oregon. Accordingly, none of these factor weighs in favor of transfer.
I. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to any deference because it is either outweighed by other factors, or the other factors are neutral. Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to deference because he chose a forum other than his own and the "operative facts occurred in different districts." ECF 23 at 2. In support, Defendant notes that aside from delivery of the Group Policies in Oregon, communications regarding Plaintiff's claim have occurred outside of Oregon.
Defendant, without any evidentiary support, also accuses Plaintiff of forum shopping. Defendants present no evidence that ERISA claimants are treated more favorably in Oregon than other forums. Indeed, a review of recent ERISA cases filed in this District against Defendant indicates most cases have resolved without a court decision. See Cox v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 6:15-cv-1707-AA; Lake v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 3:16-cv-939-AC; Schumm v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 3:14-cv-1635-AC; Nobles v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 3:12-cv-2264-AC.
Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant's characterization of the facts. For additional support of his choice of forum, Plaintiff notes that he was enrolled in his employee-benefit plans via his employer's Oregon human resources office, that as part of the claim review, Defendant communicated with the Oregon human resources office, and that the Oregon human resources office provided the requested information to Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff states that in denying his claim, Defendant relied upon erroneous information provided by the vice president of the Oregon human resources office. Plaintiff argues that absent a strong showing of inconvenience, his choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference.
Numerous courts, including this District, have found that a plaintiff's choice of venue is generally entitled to deference or significant weight in ERISA cases, although the choice may be clearly outweighed by other factors. Robertson v. Standard Ins. Co., 2014 WL 7240682 at *3 (D. Oregon 2014); Shanehchian v. Macy's Inc., 251 F.R.D. 287, 291 (S.D. Ohio 2008) 2008 WL; Cross v. Fleet Reserve Ass'n Pension Plan, 383 F. Supp. 2d 852 (D. Maryland 2005) See Board of Trustees v. Sullivant Ave. Properties, LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 473, 477 (E.D. Virginia 2007). This deference flows from Congress's intent to provide ERISA plaintiffs with a broad range of forum options. See Varsic v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of California, 607 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, as permitted, Plaintiff filed his claim in the "district where the plan is administered." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2).
The Court agrees that Plaintiff's ties to Oregon are not compelling, but, as discussed below, the balance of the remaining factors are neutral. Because the balance of factors does not tip the scales towards Minnesota, Plaintiff's choice of forum is not clearly outweighed and should be not be disturbed.
II. Convenience of the Parties
Since Plaintiff chose to file his action in this forum, this Court assumes that this forum is convenient for Plaintiff. Although Defendant argues that Oregon is 3,000 miles away from its offices in Massachusetts, it fails to offer a compelling argument as to why Minnesota, which is also a significant distance from Massachusetts, would be much more convenient. Defendant, in a reply brief footnote, states that one of its "six key U.S. offices is located in Edina, Minnesota." ECF 23 at 9, fn. 3. The Court is not persuaded. Defendants do not argue that their legal team is in Minnesota or that this "key" office has in any way been involved in administration of Plaintiff's plan. Notably, Defendant is a global corporation with offices all over the world and has appeared in this District multiple times, without moving for a change of venue due to "inconvenience." See Cox v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 6:15-cv-1707-AA; Lake v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 3:16-cv-939-AC; Schumm v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 3:14-cv-1635-AC; Nobles v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 3:12-cv-2264-AC. Accordingly, the weight of this factor is neutral.
See https://www.sunlife.com/Global/Countries?vgnLocale=en_CA (last accessed Feb. 21, 2019).
III. Local Interest in the Controversy
Defendant argues that Minnesota has a greater interest than Oregon in this claim because the alleged breach occurred in Minnesota, Plaintiff's disabling condition developed in Minnesota, and he was treated by Minnesota physicians. Plaintiff argues that neither state has a compelling interest in the outcome of this claim and that if Minnesota has an interest in ensuring its residents receive private disability benefits to which they are entitled, then Oregon has a parallel interest in safeguarding the administration of employee welfare plans delivered under its laws. The Court agrees.
This Court recognizes that Minnesota has some local interest in this case because it involves one of its citizens. That interest is diminished, however, based on the circumstances of this case - to wit, two global corporations doing business under Oregon law. Moreover, this claim involves a private insurance plan administered outside of Minnesota. The case will likely be decided on the record, making it unlikely that another court will be called upon to settle discovery disputes. Accordingly, this factor carries little weight.
IV. Balance of the Factors
After considering the factors regarding convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice, this Court concludes that Defendant has not made a strong showing warranting a transfer of venue.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion to transfer venue (ECF 13) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1st day of March 2019.
s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI
United States Magistrate Judge