Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATALIE ANDERSEN, et al., Case No.: 26-cv-3123-RSH-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 14 MEDICAL SOLUTIONS L.L.C. and MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LLC, 15 [ECF No. 15] EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue from this district to the 20 District of Nebraska pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 15. Plaintiff opposes the 21 motion. See ECF No. 21 (Response). The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court 22 finds it suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d). 23 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff, Natalie Anderson, a resident of Council Bluffs, Iowa, brings a putative 26 class action complaint against Medical Solutions, L.L.C. (“Medical Solutions”) and 27 Medical Solutions LLC, Employee Benefits Committee (the “Committee,” and together 28 with Medical Solutions, “Defendants”), alleging a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence 1 and a failure to adequately monitor fiduciaries under ERISA in relation to Defendants’ 2 administration of an employee pension benefit plan. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint), at 35–38. 3 Plaintiff was employed by Medical Solutions from September 28, 2020, until January 9, 4 2026. See ECF No. 15-2 (Decl. of Addi Love ISO Defs’ Mot. to Transfer Venue), at ¶ 8. 5 Plaintiff was invested in Medical Solutions’ 401(k) plan during the “Class Period,” defined 6 as the six years preceding the filing of the Complaint. See ECF No. 1, at 4, 5 n.2. 7 Medical Solutions is a healthcare staffing agency that is headquartered in Omaha, 8 Nebraska. See ECF No. 15-2, at ¶ 5. The company employs more than 10,000 employees, 9 located in every state in the United States, and maintains seven physical offices, located in: 10 Omaha, Nebraska; Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Tupelo, 11 Mississippi; San Diego, California; and Tampa, Florida. See id., at ¶¶ 4–7. Medical 12 Solutions’ 401(k) plan is administered by the Committee. Id. at ¶ 9. During the Class 13 Period, the Committee comprised four to six senior Medical Solutions employees, most of 14 whom are currently based in Omaha, Nebraska. Id. at ¶ 10. Medical Solutions further 15 represents that none of these Committee members are based in California. Id. The 16 Committee was advised by two third-party financial advisors during the Class Period— 17 Herzberg & Olsen Wealth Management Group and USI Advisors—both of which are 18 located in Omaha, Nebraska. Id. at ¶ 12. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 21 interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 22 division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties 23 have consented.” The burden is on the movant to establish that transferring venue is 24 appropriate under Section 1404(a). See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 25 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). The Ninth Circuit has identified as many as ten factors 26 that the court “may consider” in adjudicating a motion to transfer for forum non 27 conveniens: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, 28 (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, 1 (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s 2 cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two 3 forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non- 4 party witnesses, . . . (8) the ease of access to sources of proof[,] . . . [(9)] the presence of a 5 forum selection clause[,] . . . [and (10)] the relevant public policy of the forum state.” Jones 6 v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000).1 7 The ultimate decision is left to the discretion of the district court, see Ventress v. 8 Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007), and the analysis requires an 9 “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness,” see Stewart 10 Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (citation omitted). In adjudicating a 11 motion to transfer venue, “a court may consider evidence outside of the pleadings but must 12 draw all reasonable inferences and resolve factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving 13 party.” See Fluence Energy, LLC v. M/V BBC Finland, 584 F. Supp. 3d 878, 886 (S.D. Cal. 14 2022) (citation omitted). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 A. The Parties’ Arguments 17 In support of their motion, Defendants argue that transfer is appropriate because: (1) 18 Medical Solutions’ principal place of business is in Omaha, Nebraska, see ECF No. 15-1, 19 at 4; (2) the plan is administered in Omaha, Nebraska, see id.; (3) Medical Solutions’ 20 financial advisors, who advised on the plan, are located in Omaha, Nebraska, see id. at 4– 21 5; (4) the financial advisors are likely non-party witnesses who could not be compelled to 22 testify in the Southern District of California under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1), but could be 23 compelled to testify under that Rule in Omaha, Nebraska, see id. at 5; (5) most key party 24 25 1 The Ninth Circuit’s articulation of the factors that courts may consider has varied slightly 26 over the years, see, e.g., Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp. 27 2d 1109, 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (collecting cases), but the import of the test is that district courts should determine whether transfer serves “the convenience of the parties and 28 1 witnesses live in or near Omaha, Nebraska, and it would impose unnecessary costs on the 2 Defendants if the case remained in the Southern District of California, see id. at 10; (6) 3 Plaintiff lives near Omaha, Nebraska, see id. at 5–7; and (7) Plaintiff’s choice of forum 4 should be afforded reduced weight due to indicia of forum shopping, Nebraska’s relatively 5 greater interest in the case as compared to California, the fact that this is a nationwide class 6 action, and the District of Nebraska’s relatively lower case load per judgeship, see id. at 7– 7 11. 8 In response, Plaintiff argues that: (1) the Southern District of California is an 9 appropriate venue for the case given Defendants’ substantial business operations in the 10 state, which includes an office in San Diego,2 see ECF No. 21, at 4–6; (2) Plaintiff’s choice 11 of forum is entitled to substantial deference because this is an ERISA case and there is no 12 forum selection clause at issue, see id. at 6–7; (3) Defendants failed to name or specify the 13 locations of the witnesses who would be inconvenienced by litigating the case in 14 California, Medical Solutions concedes that some witnesses would have to travel even if 15 the case were litigated in Nebraska, and Medical Solutions is a large company with 16 significant resources, see id. at 7–9; and (4) modern litigation tools, such as remote 17 technology, would abate any inconvenience to non-party witnesses located in Nebraska, 18 see id. at 10–11. 19 B. Analysis of the 28 U.S.C. § 1404 Factors 20 As a threshold matter, there is no dispute that this case could have been brought in 21 the District of Nebraska. See ECF No. 21, at 11 (Plaintiff conceding that Nebraska “may 22 be a permissible venue”). The Parties dispute only whether transfer is appropriate for the 23 24 25 2 Plaintiff argues that Medical Solutions’ filings with the California and Nebraska Secretaries of State identify its San Diego, California office as its “principal office 26 location.” See ECF No. 21, at 6. Plaintiff cites two exhibits supporting this claim, but failed 27 to attach either exhibit to this filing. See ECF No. 21. Regardless, Plaintiff fails to explain the significance of the “principal office location” designation on the filings with the 28 1 convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice. See Stewart, 487 2 U.S. at 30. The question is therefore one for the Court’s discretion, considering the relevant 3 factors. 4 In general, “great weight is . . . accorded [to a] plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Lou v. 5 Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). As such, “[t]he defendant must [ordinarily] 6 make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of 7 forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 However, where, as here, “an individual . . . represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice 9 of forum is given less weight.” Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. This modification to the default 10 presumption exists, in part, to prevent forum shopping. See Hicks v. Grimmway Enters., 11 Inc., 2023 WL 3185784, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2023) (“In part, the reduced weight on 12 plaintiff’s choice of forum in class actions serves as a guard against the dangers of forum 13 shopping, especially when a representative plaintiff does not reside within the district.” 14 (citation omitted)). Where there are other indicia of forum shopping, a plaintiff’s choice of 15 forum is afforded even less weight. See generally Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. 16 Considering the Parties’ arguments, the Court finds that the public and private 17 interests weigh heavily in favor of transferring this case to the District of Nebraska. To 18 begin, the only relevant factor favoring maintaining venue in this district is deference to 19 Plaintiff’s choice of venue.3 See Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. However, the Court finds that there 20 21 3 Plaintiff argues that her choice of forum is entitled to “special weight” because this is an 22 ERISA case. See ECF No. 21, at 3 (citing Nat’l Shopmen Pension Fund v. Stamford Iron 23 & Steel Works, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 229, 232 (D.D.C. 2013)). The Court declines to afford her choice of venue additional weight for two reasons. First, Flynn v. Veazey Constr. Corp., 24 310 F. Supp. 2d 186, 193 (D.D.C. 2004), the case that National Shopmen quoted for the 25 proposition that an ERISA plaintiff’s choice of venue is entitled to “special weight,” explained that defendants have an “additional burden” of establishing that a transfer of 26 venue is warranted when the transfer would take the case outside of “ERISA’s special 27 venue provision.” Here, Defendants do not seek to transfer the case outside of ERISA’s special venue provision—Defendants seek a transfer to the district in which the plan is 28 1 are various indicia of forum shopping, including that Plaintiff does not reside in the district 2 or have any discernible ties to the district, and none of the operative facts occurred in the 3 district. See id. (“If the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum 4 has no interest in the parties or subject matter, [the plaintiff’s] choice is entitled to only 5 minimal consideration.”). Although Medical Solutions maintains an office in San Diego, 6 Plaintiff fails to connect any of her allegations to this office. See ECF No. 15-2, at ¶ 4 7 (identifying Medical Solutions’ seven office locations). And, while the Court recognizes 8 that the putative class would include members who reside in California, there is no 9 indication that California has a more significant interest in the case than any other state 10 given that there are more than 24,000 participants in the pension plan, who are ostensibly 11 located across all fifty states, and the Complaint contains no allegations regarding the 12 number or proportion of plan participants located in California. See id. at 15-2, at 2; ECF 13 No. 1, at ¶ 26. Plaintiff’s unsupported statement in her Response that Medical Solutions 14 “employs a substantial number of California residents who are Plan participants,” see ECF 15 No. 21, at 5, is insufficient to establish that California has a greater interest in this case than 16 any other state. And, as the Court explains below, Nebraska has at least a slightly greater 17 interest in this case than California given that Medical Solutions is based in Nebraska and 18 administers the plan in that state. Accordingly, the Court accords the only factor weighing 19 in favor of maintaining venue in this district—deference to the Plaintiff’s choice—minimal 20 weight. 21 22 23 administered. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) (providing that an ERISA case may be brought “in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a 24 defendant resides or may be found”). Second, Plaintiff fails to cite any controlling authority 25 adopting the “special weight” rule under these circumstances. To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has held that “ERISA[’s] venue provision . . . is intended to expand, rather than 26 restrict, the range of permissible venue locations.” Varsic v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. 27 of Cal., 607 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1979). Even if the Court were to afford special weight to Plaintiff’s choice of venue, the Court would grant Defendants’ motion nonetheless based 28 1 Every other relevant factor weighs in favor of transferring venue to the District of 2 Nebraska.4 Both of the Parties and a majority of the evidence and third-party witnesses in 3 this case are located in or near the District of Nebraska. See ECF No. 15-2, at ¶¶ 8–12. 4 Plaintiff herself lives next to Omaha, Nebraska. See id., at ¶ 8. A majority of the members 5 of the Committee are based in Omaha and none are based in California.5 Id. at ¶ 10. Both 6 of the financial advisors retained by Medical Solutions to advise the Committee on the 7 administration of the pension plan are located in Omaha. Id. at ¶ 12. In addition to the 8 reduced travel costs associated with litigating in a forum near these witnesses, the Parties 9 would be able to take advantage of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)(A), which 10 provides for the issuance of a subpoena to compel a person to testify at a “trial, hearing, or 11 deposition . . . within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 12 transacts business in person.” Defendants also cite statistics suggesting that the relative 13 administrative burdens favor transferring this case to the District of Nebraska. See ECF 14 No. 15-1, at 10. 15 To date, Plaintiff has not identified a single piece of evidence or witness located in 16 this district, instead claiming that any inconvenience to or burden on Medical Solutions is 17 “overstated” because Medical Solutions is “a large national company” that can afford 18 expenses associated with litigating in this district. See ECF No. 21, at 7–9. But the fact that 19 20 21 4 Neither party argues that the Southern District of California is more familiar with ERISA law than the District of Nebraska, nor that a forum selection clause applies. As such, those 22 factors do not affect the Court’s analysis. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99. 23 5 The Court places minimal weight on the fact that Medical Solutions did not provide the names of the specific witnesses who would be inconvenienced by testifying. Courvette v. 24 Courvette is inapposite because that case involved “vague generalizations of 25 inconvenience” and a failure to identify the relevance of the testimony of witnesses who would be inconvenienced by proceeding in the original forum. 2013 WL 2898531, at *3– 26 4 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) (citation omitted). Here, Defendants identified the role of the 27 witnesses who would be inconvenienced by litigating this case in this district, as well as the relevance of their testimony. The Court does not find that the names of the individual 28 | party can afford to litigate in a particular district does not mean it is convenient to do so. 2 || Based on all of the evidence before the Court, it seems that it would be more convenient to 3 || both Parties to litigate this case in Nebraska. 4 Lastly, the Court finds that Nebraska has at least somewhat of a greater interest in 5 ||this case given that the plan was administered in Nebraska and Medical Solutions is 6 || headquartered in the state. While California undoubtedly has an interest in protecting its 7 ||residents from violations of ERISA law, Plaintiff has failed to bring forth any evidence or 8 allegation establishing that California’s interest in this case is equivalent to or outweighs 9 || Nebraska’s. Thus, the public interest weighs in favor of transfer. 10 Considering all of the above factors, Defendants have carried their burden, and the 11 Court elects to exercise its discretion to transfer venue. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion 12 ||[ECF No. 15] is GRANTED and the action is TRANSFERRED to the United States 13 || District Court for the District of Nebraska. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 31, 2026 Jihut [oer 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 °