Nuss v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.

• Decision Date: 05 May 2021
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-9189-MKV
• Parties: INGRID NUSS, Plaintiff, v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

INGRID NUSS, Plaintiff, v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.

1:20-cv-9189-MKV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 5, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Ingrid Nuss ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendant Guardian Life Insurance Company of America ("Defendant") to recover long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1132. (Compl. [ECF No. 1].) Defendant has moved to transfer this action to the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Mot. Transfer [ECF No. 8].) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and this case shall be TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Georgia.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff began working in Atlanta, Georgia, as an attorney for Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP ("Drew Eckl"), a Georgia-based law firm, in 2013. (Compl. ¶ 19; Compl. Ex. B at 1 [ECF No. 1-2]; Wiltrout Decl. ¶ 2 [ECF No. 9-1]; see Compl. Ex. H at 3 [ECF No. 1-8].) A decade later, she grew ill, experiencing continuous nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and fatigue, among other symptoms. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-26.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was diagnosed with gastroparesis and came under the care of multiple Georgia-based doctors. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-32; Compl. Ex. D [ECF No. 1-4]; Wiltrout Decl. Ex. 6 at 1 [ECF No. 9-7].)

Plaintiff's medical condition caused her productivity and work quality to decline. (Compl. ¶¶ 27-29.) Consequently, Drek Eckl recommended that Plaintiff take a leave of absence. (Compl. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff's symptoms began improving, so she returned to work on a part-time basis two months after leaving the firm. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35.) The work proved too taxing, however, causing Plaintiff to need to cease working after only a few months back at the firm. (Compl. ¶ 39.)

During this time, Plaintiff filed a long-term disability claim with Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Defendant's disability claims unit, located in Pennsylvania, approved Plaintiff's claim for benefits. (Compl. ¶ 40; Wiltrout Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff again returned to work at Drew Eckl in Atlanta on a part-time basis in 2016. (Compl. ¶ 42.) The quality of her work, however, did not meet expectations. (Compl. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff ultimately stopped working in 2018. (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47.)

In 2019, after a periodic review of her disability claim, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits. (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 53.) Plaintiff appealed the termination to Defendant's appeals department in Lexington, Kentucky, but Defendant affirmed its decision. (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 93; Wiltrout Decl. Ex. 5 at 1-2 [ECF No. 9-6].)

Plaintiff filed this action in November 2020, alleging violations of ERISA. (Compl. ¶¶ 95, 104-10.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant answered the Complaint (Answer [ECF No. 11]) and moved to transfer this action to the Northern District of Georgia, arguing that this case has no connection to New York (Mot. Transfer; Def.'s Br. [ECF No. 9]). In support of its motion, Defendant filed a declaration with several exhibits. (Wiltrout Decl. [ECF No. 9-1].) Plaintiff filed an opposition (Pl.'s Opp. [ECF No. 13]), and Defendant filed a reply (Def.'s Reply [ECF No. 16]).¹

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may transfer a civil action to any district where the action could have been brought "[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). "District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis." D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp., 980 F.2d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 1992)); see Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). The movant on a Section 1404(a) motion bears the burden of establishing the propriety of transfer by clear and convincing evidence. See N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N.A., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (collecting cases).

A motion to transfer requires a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must determine whether the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. Hoadley v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., No. 08-cv-11192, 2009 WL 2001327, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2009) (citing Reliance Ins. Co. v. Six Star, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 49, 56 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). An action could have been brought in another forum if the proposed transferee district has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and venue is proper there. Robertson v. Cartinhour, No. 10 Civ. 8442 (LTS), 2011 WL 5175597, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2011).

Second, the Court must determine whether transfer of the case is appropriate. Hoadley, 2009 WL 2001327, at *2 (citing D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 106). The Second Circuit has identified several factors courts should consider in making this determination, including "(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (7) therelative means of the parties." D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 106-07 (quoting Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F. Supp. 2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). District courts have identified additional factors, including (8) "the forum's familiarity with the governing law" and (9) "trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances." Kaufman v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 20-CV-06879 (JPC)(SN), 2021 WL 1687378, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2021) (citing Knowles-Carter v. Feyonce, Inc., No. 16-cv-02532 (AJN), 2017 WL 11567528, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2017); and TouchTunes Music Corp. v. Rowe Int'l Corp., 676 F. Supp. 2d 169, 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)); see also Cadilla v. MFX Sols., Inc., 20 Civ. 5966 (AKH), 2021 WL 1268339, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2021); Nelson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-CV-4045 (LAP), 2019 WL 2514229, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2019). "There is no strict formula for the application of these factors, and no single factor is determinative." Wald v. Bank of America Corp., 856 F. Supp. 2d 545, 549 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Delta Air Lines v. Ass'n of Flight Attendants, 720 F. Supp. 2d 213, 217 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)).

ANALYSIS

Defendant has met its burden of establishing the propriety of transfer. First, this action could have been brought in the Northern District of Georgia. ERISA contains a venue provision providing that an 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). Plaintiff admits that venue would be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because that is where the breach took place. (Pl.'s Opp. 2.) Furthermore, Defendant has impliedly consented to personal jurisdiction in Georgia by moving to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia. See Innovate1 v. First Bridge Merchant Sols., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01123 (KAD), 2020 WL 4718970, at *6 n.8 (D. Conn. Aug. 13, 2020); Marotto v. Kellogg Co., No. 18 CIV. 3545 (AKH),2018 WL 10667923, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2018); Bent v. Zounds Hearing Franchising, LLC, No. 15-cv-6555 (PAE), 2016 WL 153092, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016); see also City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 134 (2d Cir. 2011) (alterations, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted) ("A court will obtain, through implied consent, personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the actions of the defendant during the litigation amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court, whether voluntary or not." (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 704-05 (1982))); accord Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 n.14 (1985).

Second, considering the nine transfer factors, the Court finds that transfer to the Northern District of Georgia is appropriate.

1. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

A plaintiff's choice of forum is normally "given great weight." D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 107 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981)). This is especially so in ERISA cases because "Congress purposefully enacted a broad venue provision for ERISA." Tritt v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan Adm'r, No. 3:06-cv-2065 (CFD), 2008 WL 2228841, at *2 (D. Conn. May 27, 2008) (collecting sources); see also Marton v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., No. 3:96-CV-697, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22865, at *9 (D. Conn. Mar. 11, 1998) (noting that "Congress' intent in drafting ERISA's liberal venue provision was to expand an ERISA plaintiff's choice of forum and limit the forum choice of corporate fiduciaries" (citing Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., 880 F. Supp. 63, 73 (D. Mass. 1995); and Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Salasnek Fisheries, Inc., 977 F. Supp. 888 (N.D. Ill. 1997))); accord In re Principal U.S. Prop. Account Litig., 09-CV9889 (CM), 2010 WL 1645042, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2010).

But even in the ERISA context, a plaintiff's choice of forum is "not controlling." Semente v. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc., No. 14-CV-5644 (JMF), 2014 WL 4967193, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014). To rule otherwise would render Section 1404(a) "all but meaningless." Id. Where, "the plaintiff's choice is not [her] home forum," her choice receives less weight because "the assumption that the chosen forum is appropriate is in such cases 'less reasonable.'" Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007) (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255-56). Furthermore, "when the operative facts have few meaningful connections to the plaintiff's chosen forum," the importance of the plaintiff's choice "measurably diminishes." Harris v. Brody, 476 F. Supp. 2d...