Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-03638
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance, Judge Calabrese transferred a data-breach class action from Ohio to Minnesota, where about 30 similar cases are already pending.
People who were affected by an Allianz Life Insurance data breach in 2025 and have filed or may file class action lawsuits. This ruling means their cases will be consolidated in the District of Minnesota rather than litigated separately in Ohio.
What happened
In Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, plaintiff Kim Gress filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio after a data breach. Approximately 30 similar lawsuits arising from the same breach are already pending in the District of Minnesota. Allianz moved to transfer the case to Minnesota, and Gress did not oppose the motion.
Federal law allows a court to transfer a case to another district for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Courts weigh factors including where key events occurred, how easy it is to access evidence and compel witnesses, and the plaintiff's original choice of forum. However, courts generally will not transfer a case if doing so would simply shift inconvenience from one side to the other rather than produce a net benefit.
Judge J. Philip Calabrese found that all relevant factors supported transfer. Because Gress did not oppose the move and about 30 related cases are already before courts in Minnesota, both party convenience and judicial economy — the efficient use of court resources — favored consolidating the litigation there. The court granted the transfer motion and ordered the case clerk to send the case to the District of Minnesota.
The detailed version
- Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America · No. 0:25-cv-03638
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Kim Gress filed this putative class action (a lawsuit brought on behalf of herself and others similarly situated) in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, following a data breach that occurred earlier in 2025. Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America is the target of approximately 30 similar lawsuits already pending in the District of Minnesota arising from the same data breach.
The Motion
Allianz moved to transfer the case from the Northern District of Ohio to the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to a more convenient forum in the interest of justice. Gress did not oppose the motion.
Legal Standard
The court applied the Sixth Circuit's multi-factor balancing test for transfer motions, drawing on Boling v. Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC, 771 F. App'x 562 (6th Cir. 2019), and Means v. United States Conf. of Cath. Bishops, 836 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2016). The relevant factors include:
- Convenience of witnesses - Location of operative facts - Ability to compel unwilling witnesses - Interests of justice - Ease of accessing sources of proof - Convenience of the parties - The plaintiff's choice of forum
The court also noted the principle from Siegfried v. Takeda Pharms. N. Am., Inc. that a transfer is generally not warranted if it merely shifts inconvenience from one party to another rather than producing a net benefit.
Analysis and Holding
Judge Calabrese found that all factors favored transfer. Although Gress initially chose to file in Ohio — a factor that normally weighs in a plaintiff's favor — she did not oppose the transfer, effectively neutralizing that consideration. The existence of approximately 30 related cases already pending in the District of Minnesota weighed heavily in favor of transfer on both party/witness convenience and judicial economy grounds.
The court granted Allianz's motion and ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the District of Minnesota.
Note on Docket Header
The opinion's header lists the court as the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, though the case metadata indicates the filing court as the District of Minnesota (mnd). The opinion itself was issued by Judge Calabrese of the Northern District of Ohio, transferring the case to Minnesota. The docket number 1:25-cv-1774 is consistent with an Ohio filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.