Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York

• Decision Date: 11 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. CV 09-06811 SJO (JEMx).,CV 09-06811 SJO (JEMx).
• Citation: 674 F.Supp.2d 1141
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Florence H. METZ, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

674 F.Supp.2d 1141

Florence H. METZ, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 09-06811 SJO (JEMx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

December 11, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Allan A. Shenoi, Daniel J. Koes, Shenoi Koes LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff.

Adrienne C. Publicover, Michael K. Brisbin, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, San Francisco, CA, Christopher Frost, Edward A. Hosp, Lee Bains Michael D. Mulvaney, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Birningham, AL, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THIS CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York ("U.S. Life") Motion for an Order Transferring this Case to the Southern District of New York Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed October 14, 2009. Plaintiff Florence Metz ("Plaintiff") filed an Opposition, to which U.S. Life replied. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for December 7, 2009. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). For the following reasons, U.S. Life's Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2009, Plaintiff, "an individual who resides in California," filed a Complaint against U.S. Life in the Superior Court of the State of California, "individually and purporting to represent a class of similarly situated persons." (Compl. ¶ 1.) In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Breach of Insurance Contract Seeking Consequential Damages for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentations; (4) Deceit; and (5) Deceptive Practices in Violation of New York General Business Law, Section 349. (See Compl.) Specifically, Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that "on September 6, 2007, [she] properly submitted an insurance claim for covered catastrophic major medical benefits under THE POLICY ("the Policy")," but "U.S. Life refused— and continues to refuse—to pay Plaintiff the benefits owed under the POLICY." (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 37.) On September 18, 2009, U.S. Life removed this action to this Court, under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (See Notice of Removal.) In pertinent part, U.S. Life stated:

Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c) because U.S. Life is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. Moreover, venue is also proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) which reads in part `. . . any civil action . . . may be removed . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.' Los Angeles County is within the jurisdiction of the Central District of California.

(Notice of Removal ¶ 55.)

U.S. Life now alleges that this action should be transferred to the Southern District of New York. (Def.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ("Def.'s Mem.").) Generally U.S. Life claims its operations are all based in the New York area, which encompasses New York City, as well as certain parts of New Jersey, so that transfer to the Southern District of New York is appropriate. Specifically, U.S. Life contends that it "is and was at the time of the filing of this lawsuit, a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York." (Def.'s Mem. 4.) Moreover, U.S. Life alleges that "the majority of [its] operations pertaining to the Policy and the catastrophic major medical group plan insurance policies ("CMMGP Policies"), including risk analysis, underwriting, processing of group insurance applications, policy issuance, compliance customer service, legal inquiries, appeals, and claims processing are handled in Neptune, NJ and New York, NY." (Def.'s Mem. 4.)

Finally, U.S. Life alleges that the policies at issue in Plaintiffs Complaint, and the insureds under those policies are "all inextricably connected to the state of New York." (Def.'s Mem. 5.) The Policy was issued "to the New York State United Teachers Benefit Trust ("NYSUT") and took effect on July 15, 1995." (Def.'s Mem. 5; Compl. 2.) "The Policy was executed, delivered, and accepted by NYSUT in New York," and key U.S. Life witnesses are all located in the New York area. (Def.'s Mem. 5-6.) U.S. Life claims that "[g]iven that most if not virtually all of U.S. Life's witnesses, claims records, and claims-handling and executive decisionmaking personnel with respect to the Policy and the CMMGP Policies are located In U.S. Life's Offices in the New York [a]rea, it would be extremely expensive and inconvenient for U.S. Life to have to defend and try this case in California." (Def.'s Mem. 7.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard for Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

In pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (" § 1404") states that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district court where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is "to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Saleh v. Titan Corp., et al., 361 F.Supp.2d 1152 (S.D.Cal.2005) (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964)). "Thus, even when venue is proper where the action is pending, section 1404(a) provides the Court with the discretion to transfer an action to a different venue under certain circumstances." Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2006 WL 4568799 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 27, 2006). Analysis under § 1404 is two-fold. First, the defendant must establish that the matter "might have been brought" in the district to which transfer is sought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). "This includes demonstrating that subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue would have been proper if the plaintiff had filed the action in the district to which transfer is sought." Catch Curve, Inc., 2006 WL 4568799 *1; see Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1960).

Second, courts must consider the following three factors: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see L.A. Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. N.F.L., 89 F.R.D. 497 (D.D.Cal.1981); see Szegedy v. Keystone Food Prod., Inc., 2009 WL 2767683 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 26, 2009). In analyzing the third factor, the "interests of justice," a number of factors are relevant, including:

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiffs choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiffs 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.

Szegedy, 2009 WL 2767683 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 26, 2009); see Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988). "Other factors that can be considered include: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) the relative court congestion in the two forums; and (3) which forum would better serve judicial economy." Szegedy, 2009 WL 2767683 *2; see also 17 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 111.13[1][c] (3d. ed. 1997). "Substantial weight is accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum, and a court should not order a transfer unless the `convenience' and `justice' factors set forth above weigh heavily in favor of venue elsewhere." Catch Curve, Inc., 2006 WL 4568799 *1; see Szegedy, 2009 WL 2767683 *2. As such, "[t]he party seeking to transfer venue bears the burden of showing that convenience and justice require transfer." Catch Curve, Inc., 2006 WL 4568799 *1; see Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 278-79 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that "[t]he defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiffs choice of forum.").

However, there are instances in which a plaintiffs choice of forum receives less weight. First, "a foreign plaintiffs [forum] choice deserves less deference than the forum choice of a domestic plaintiff." Saleh, 361 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1158 (citing Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509 (9th Cir.2000)). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit "like other courts, has noted that the weight to be given the plaintiffs choice of forum is discounted where the action is a class action." Saleh, 361 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1157; see also Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that "when an individual brings a derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight."). Deference to the plaintiffs choice of venue is further diminished "if the moving party establishes one or more of the following factors: (1) the operative facts have not occurred within the forum; (2) the forum has no particular interest in the parties or subject matter; (3) the forum is not the primary residence of either the plaintiff or defendant; or (4) the subject matter of the litigation is not substantially connected to the forum." Catch Curve, Inc., 2006 WL 4568799 *4; see Pfeiffer v. Himax Techs., Inc., 530 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1124 (C.D.Cal. 2008) (holding that "ordinarily, a plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to deference. This is not the case, however, when plaintiffs do not reside in the district, the operative facts...