G. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company

Background

Fred G. sued the Directors Guild of America—Producer Health Plan (the “Plan”) and Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Fred G. is a participant in the Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan. His son, J.G., is a beneficiary. Anthem administered mental-health benefits under the Plan.

The Plan and Anthem approved an initial 21-day period of treatment for J.G. at a residential treatment center in Utah but denied claims for additional treatment. Fred G. filed claims seeking benefits allegedly due and alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The Plan moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Central District of California. Anthem did not challenge venue.

Venue analysis

The court applied the special venue rule for Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases, which allows venue where the plan is administered, where the alleged breach occurred, or where the defendant resides or may be found. Fred G. argued only that the Plan could be found in the Northern District of California.

The court explained that a plan may be found in a district when its contacts there are sufficient to support personal jurisdiction. It found insufficient contacts under the specific-jurisdiction analysis. The Plan had not been shown to have purposefully conducted activities in the Northern District related to this case. Less than one percent of Plan members lived in Northern California, and the presence of those members alone was not enough. Fred G. also had not alleged that he lived in the Northern District or identified acts or events relevant to the case that occurred there.

Because the Plan could not be found in the Northern District under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s venue rule, the court concluded that venue was improper there. The court found that the Central District was a proper venue because the Plan was administered in Los Angeles. It also concluded that venue was proper there as to Anthem and that transferring the entire action would better serve judicial efficiency than separating the claims.

Alternative transfer analysis

The court further held that transfer would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) even if venue had been proper in the Northern District. That statute permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Several factors favored transfer. The court stated that most, if not all, relevant agreements appeared to have been negotiated and executed in the Central District; the parties had more contacts with that district; the relevant events had no identified connection to the Northern District; evidence would likely be easier to access in the Central District; and more relevant witnesses appeared to be there. The plaintiff’s choice of the Northern District weighed somewhat against transfer, while other factors were neutral or only slightly favored Fred G.

Ruling

The court granted the Plan’s motion and transferred the entire case to the Central District of California. It transferred the case rather than dismissing it.