Adam v. CaringBridge
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04555
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
In Adam v. CaringBridge, Inc., Judge Orrick granted CaringBridge's motion to transfer the privacy lawsuit from California to Minnesota based on a forum selection clause the plaintiff agreed to.
Users of the CaringBridge health-sharing website — particularly those who created accounts and may have had their sensitive medical information shared with third-party advertising platforms like Google and Meta — as well as other companies that rely on forum selection clauses in their terms of service to require litigation in their home state. The ruling also affects plaintiffs who file privacy class actions in California against out-of-state companies with Minnesota forum selection clauses.
What happened
In Janice Adam v. CaringBridge, Inc. (No. 25-cv-06042), plaintiff Janice Adam, a California resident, sued CaringBridge — a Minnesota-based nonprofit — claiming the company allowed Google and Meta to secretly intercept her sensitive medical information through tracking codes embedded in CaringBridge's website. She filed the case as a proposed class action in the Northern District of California, raising claims under California and federal privacy laws.
CaringBridge moved to transfer the case to Minnesota, where it is headquartered, pointing to a forum selection clause in its Terms of Use that Adam agreed to when she created her account. That clause required any legal dispute to be filed in a state or federal court in Hennepin County, Minnesota. CaringBridge also argued, alternatively, that if transfer was denied the case should be dismissed for failing to state a legal claim — but the court did not reach that argument.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the motion to transfer. The court found that while venue was arguably proper in California because Adam used the website there, the forum selection clause she agreed to when creating her account controls, effectively overriding her choice to sue in California. After weighing factors such as witness convenience, litigation costs, and the interests of both states, the judge concluded that transfer to the District of Minnesota best serves the interests of justice. The case was transferred there for all further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Adam v. CaringBridge · No. 0:25-cv-04555
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
CaringBridge, Inc. is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Minnesota with its principal place of business in Eagan, Minnesota. It operates a website that allows caregivers and patients to share health updates and coordinate care. To use most features of the website, visitors must create an account and agree to CaringBridge's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Plaintiff Janice Adam, a resident of Castro Valley, California (in the Northern District of California), created a CaringBridge account in 2023 and used the site to receive health updates about a loved one. In doing so, she alleged she repeatedly provided sensitive medical and personally identifying information to CaringBridge.
At the center of Adam's complaint is the allegation that CaringBridge embedded Google Analytics tracking code and the Meta Pixel (a tracking tool used by Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms, Inc.) in its website, which intercepted her confidential medical information in real time and transmitted it to Google and Meta — without her consent — for advertising and analytics purposes.
Adam filed a putative class action (a lawsuit brought on behalf of herself and a proposed group of similarly situated people) in the Northern District of California, raising claims under: - The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) - The California Constitution - The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1) et seq.
She proposed two classes: a nationwide class of all U.S. users whose information was intercepted, and a California subclass.
CaringBridge's Motion
CaringBridge moved to transfer the case to a state or federal court in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where it is headquartered, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted) if transfer was denied.
CaringBridge's primary transfer argument relied on a forum selection clause in its Terms of Use, which states:
"Any legal action or proceeding relating to your access to, or use of, this service or these terms of use shall be instituted only in a state or federal court located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA. You and CaringBridge irrevocably agree to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts."
Legal Framework
Venue Statutes
Federal venue — the question of which federal court location is the proper place to file a lawsuit — is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue is generally proper where (1) a defendant resides, (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) as a catch-all.
If venue is improper, a case may be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a). Even if venue is proper, a court may transfer a case to a more convenient district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when doing so would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
Under Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), a valid forum selection clause can only be enforced through a § 1404(a) transfer motion — not through a motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Analysis
I. Was Venue Proper in the Northern District of California?
The court first addressed whether venue was proper in California before deciding whether to transfer.
Forum selection clause
CaringBridge argued the forum selection clause rendered California venue improper. The court rejected this argument under § 1406(a), following Atlantic Marine's rule that forum selection clauses are enforced via § 1404(a) transfer motions, not through dismissal motions.
Statutory venue factors
CaringBridge is incorporated and headquartered in Minnesota, so the first statutory venue category did not apply to California. The court then considered whether a "substantial part of the events" giving rise to Adam's claims occurred in the Northern District under § 1391(a)(2).
Adam argued that under the Third Circuit's reasoning in Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., 52 F.4th 121 (3d Cir. 2022), the interception of her data occurred at her browser in California, not at CaringBridge's servers in Minnesota. CaringBridge countered that the tracking code was part of a website designed and maintained in Minnesota, where no employees involved in developing the site lived in California.
The court found this a "close call" but assumed without deciding that venue was proper in California, because the outcome was the same regardless: the forum selection clause required transfer to Minnesota.
II. Should the Case Be Transferred to Minnesota?
Could the case have been brought in Minnesota? Yes. The District of Minnesota has proper venue (CaringBridge's principal place of business is there), subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over large class actions with minimal diversity and more than $5 million at stake), and personal jurisdiction over CaringBridge.
Do the interests of justice require transfer? The court applied the multi-factor balancing test from Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000):
1. Location of relevant agreements — Neutral. Adam brought statutory and constitutional claims, not contract claims.
2. State most familiar with governing law — Marginally favors California for the state law claims, but federal courts can apply other states' laws, so this factor carries little weight.
3. Plaintiff's choice of forum — Normally given significant weight, but reduced here because (a) this is a class action, where the named plaintiff's forum preference receives less deference, and (b) the forum selection clause that Adam agreed to when creating her account requires disputes to be heard in Minnesota. The court rejected Adam's argument that the clause was inapplicable because her CIPA claims embody a fundamental California policy. The court acknowledged Adam's citation to In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016), but found that case addressed the choice-of-law provision after a transfer had already occurred — a different posture. Any choice-of-law disputes can be raised in Minnesota.
4. Parties' contacts with the Northern District — Largely neutral or slightly against transfer. Adam lives in California; CaringBridge's employees and operations are in Minnesota. The nationwide class has limited connection to the Northern District.
5. Witness convenience — Favors transfer. CaringBridge's employees and key witnesses are in Minnesota. While technology could enable remote depositions, that does not eliminate potential trial burdens.
6. Differences in litigation costs — Favors transfer. Most documentary evidence is in Minnesota, which may reduce overall costs. The fact that this is a class action also reduces the cost burden on Adam individually.
7. Availability of compulsory process — Neutral. Neither party addressed this, and both districts presumably have equal subpoena power.
8. Ease of access to evidence — Neutral. CaringBridge acknowledged the digital age makes electronic document transfer easy, and CaringBridge did not show that evidence in Minnesota would be unavailable electronically.
9. Other factors (state policy interests and court congestion) — Both neutral. California has an interest in protecting residents; Minnesota has an equal interest in regulating its businesses. The difference in docket statistics (20.5 months average to resolution in Northern California vs. 8.7 months in Minnesota) was not found significant enough to favor transfer on this ground alone.
Overall balance
The court found transfer proper, with the forum selection clause playing a decisive role. When a valid forum selection clause exists, courts treat all private-interest factors as weighing in favor of the selected forum. The public-interest factors did not overcome that presumption.
Disposition
CaringBridge's motion to transfer is GRANTED. The case is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for all further proceedings. All further hearings before Judge Orrick are vacated. The court did not reach the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.