Adam v. CaringBridge

Background

Janice Adam filed a putative class action against CaringBridge, Inc. concerning CaringBridge’s website. Adam alleged that CaringBridge used Google Analytics and Meta Pixel tracking code to help Google and Meta intercept, in real time, confidential communications and sensitive medical and personally identifying information that users sent to or received through the website. She asserted claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Constitution, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The proposed classes included a nationwide class and a California subclass.

CaringBridge moved to transfer the case to a state or federal court in Minnesota. It argued that Adam had agreed to a forum-selection clause in the website’s Terms of Use requiring legal actions concerning access to or use of the service to be brought only in a state or federal court in Hennepin County, Minnesota. CaringBridge alternatively moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Venue in California

The court determined that venue was proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), which permits a case to be filed where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The court treated the issue as a close call and assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Adam had met her burden. The court noted that the alleged interception plausibly occurred at Adam’s browser in California, while CaringBridge’s website was designed and maintained in Minnesota.

The court did not use the forum-selection clause to decide whether venue was proper under the statute governing dismissal or transfer for improper venue. It explained that such a clause may be enforced through a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), rather than through a motion to dismiss for improper venue under § 1406(a).

Transfer to Minnesota

The court concluded that the case could have been brought in the District of Minnesota. CaringBridge was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Minnesota, supporting venue there. The court also found federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act based on the allegations that the proposed class exceeded 100 members, minimal diversity existed, and the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. CaringBridge was subject to general personal jurisdiction in Minnesota because its principal place of business was there.

The court then balanced the factors used to decide whether transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. It found that the forum-selection clause substantially reduced the weight given to Adam’s choice of California as the forum. The court also found that witness convenience and litigation costs favored Minnesota because CaringBridge’s website operations, employees, and most potential key witnesses were there. Other factors—including the location of agreements, the states’ policy interests, the availability of compulsory process, access to evidence, and court congestion—were neutral or carried little weight.

The court rejected Adam’s argument that potential differences between California and Minnesota law prevented transfer. It stated that the District of Minnesota could apply California law if appropriate and that any choice-of-law dispute could be addressed there.

Disposition

The court granted CaringBridge’s motion to transfer. It ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for all further proceedings and vacated future hearings before Judge Orrick. The court expressly declined to reach the merits of CaringBridge’s alternative motion to dismiss.