1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JENNIFER LAYFIELD, Case No. 24-cv-03616-AMO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. TRANSFER

10 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Re: Dkt. No. 23

OF AMERICA,

11 Defendant.

12 13 This is an Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 14 §§ 1001 et seq., action for long term disability (“LTD”) benefits under an employee benefit plan. 15 Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”) moves to transfer the case to the 16 Central District of California under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404 for the convenience of the parties. 17 Unum’s motion to transfer was heard before this Court on April 24, 2025. Having read the papers 18 filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments therein and those made at the hearing, 19 as well as the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to transfer for the 20 following reasons. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Jennifer Layfield is an attorney who most recently worked for DLA Piper, LLP. 23 Compl. (ECF 1) ¶ 2. Layfield resides in Pacific Palisades in the Central District of California, and 24 she was the only person in her practice team based in DLA Piper’s Century City offices near her 25 home. See Bell Decl., Ex. A at -66 (ECF 23-5 at 3); Layfield Decl. (ECF 30-1) ¶¶ 2, 11. The rest 26 of Layfield’s work team were based in DLA Piper’s San Francisco office and the majority of her 27 clients were based in the San Francisco Bay Area, making her work largely remote. Layfield 1 Piper is headquartered in Maryland. Bell Decl., Ex. A at -165 (ECF 23-5 at 17). Defendant Unum 2 is based in Maine. Compl. ¶ 3. 3 In December 2020, Layfield contracted COVID-19. Layfield Decl. ¶ 13. It developed into 4 long-COVID, preventing her from returning to work full-time. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. All the physicians 5 Layfield consulted were located in Los Angeles. See generally Bell Decl., Ex. A. Layfield 6 submitted an LTD benefits claim to Unum under DLA Piper’s LTD plan. Layfield Decl. ¶ 17. 7 Unum denied her claim. Id. That claim denial is the subject of the instant suit. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 ERISA specifically provides that civil actions “may be brought in the district where the 10 plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found.” 11 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Layfield argues, based on this provision, that venue is proper here 12 because Unum can be “found” in this district. Opp. at 4 (citing Varsic v. U.S. Dist. Court for 13 Cent. Dist. of California, 607 F.2d 245, 247 (9th Cir. 1979)). Unum concedes that venue is proper 14 in this district, but still contends that the case should be transferred. See Mot. at 5. 15 A motion to transfer an action to another district under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) lies 16 within the district court’s broad discretion and must be determined on an individualized basis. 17 Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). “Section 1404(a) requires the 18 court to make a threshold determination of whether the case could have been brought where the 19 transfer is sought. If venue is appropriate in the alternative venue, the court must weigh the 20 convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interest of justice.” State v. 21 Bureau of Land Mgmt., 286 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2018). The moving party must 22 make a “strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum” by 23 showing private factors relating to “the convenience of parties and witnesses” and public factors 24 relating to “the interest of justice” warrant transfer. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison 25 Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The public and private factors courts should consider 26 include:

27 (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local interest in the 1 controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. 2 3 Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Jones, 211 F.3d at 4 498-99. “The convenience of the witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses, is often the most 5 important factor” in ruling on a motion to transfer venue under Section 1404(a). Grossman v. 6 Johnson & Johnson, No. 14-CV-03557-VC, 2015 WL 1743116, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2015). 7 In this case, three of the factors stand out for the Court’s consideration: deference owed to 8 Plaintiff’s choice of forum, convenience, and the local interest in the case. The Court takes up 9 these three factors in turn. 10 A. Deference Owed to Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum 11 In general, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded substantial weight. Decker Coal Co. v. 12 Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Carolina Cas. Co. v. Data Broad. 13 Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2001). However, “[t]he degree to which courts 14 defer to the plaintiff’s chosen venue is substantially reduced where the plaintiff’s venue choice is 15 not its residence or where the forum lacks a significant connection to the activities alleged in the 16 complaint.” Carolina Cas. Co., 158 F. Supp. 2d at 1048 (internal citations omitted). If there is 17 any indication that plaintiff’s choice of forum is the result of forum shopping, plaintiff’s choice 18 will be accorded little deference. Id. 19 Here, Layfield is not a resident of this district. She is admittedly a resident of the Central 20 District of California, Layfield Decl. ¶ 2, and she was diagnosed and treated for her illness in the 21 Central District of California, see Bell Decl., Ex. A. Moreover, Unum’s coverage determination 22 took place in Maine. See Bell Decl., Ex. A. None of the case’s events took place in this forum. 23 See Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[i]f the operative facts have not occurred 24 within the forum . . . , [the plaintiff’s] choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.”). 25 Layfield’s remote work from Southern California for the San Francisco office of a Maryland- 26 headquartered law firm serves as only a tenuous connection to the Northern District of California. 27 On these facts, Layfield’s choice to litigate in this District is forum shopping. Thus, Layfield’s 1 B. Convenience 2 Unum contends that the action should be transferred based on the convenience to the 3 parties and witnesses. If there is any inconvenience to Layfield, she has clearly chosen to forgo it 4 by filing in this district. Unum is located in Maine and all of its relevant employees are in Maine. 5 Mot. at 7. Thus, there is no clear additional inconvenience to either party if this case were 6 transferred to the Central District of California. 7 Because this is an ERISA benefits action, which has limited discovery and evidentiary 8 restrictions, Layfield contends the convenience of witnesses is not a factor. Opp. at 5-6. 9 Conversely, Unum advances that it may seek to interview the physicians that Layfield consulted 10 given the novelty of a long-COVID diagnosis. Reply at 3. Layfield saw approximately seven 11 medical professionals related to her long-COVID, all of whom are based in Los Angeles. See 12 Mot. at 2 (listing physicians). Thus, while the parties agree that the likelihood of fact discovery is 13 slim in a case primarily focused on an administrative record, if Unum seeks to depose those third- 14 party witnesses, the Central District will certainly prove more convenient than this forum. 15 Moreover, this Court would be limited in its ability to enforce any such third-party discovery. See 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Overall, the convenience factor weighs at least minimally in favor of transfer. 17 C. Local Interest 18 As explained above, Layfield resides in the Central District of California. Layfield was 19 diagnosed and treated in the Central District. No part of Unum’s denial took place in this forum. 20 The Central District has a much more significant interest in the controversy than this District. 21 Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Viewing the totality of the factors, the Court finds that this case belongs in the Central 24 District of California. The Court concludes the Central District, where Layfield and potential 25 witnesses reside, would be more convenient. The Court additionally finds the Central District has 26 a greater interest in the dispute. Layfield’s election to file the case here, in a forum so attenuated 27 from the facts and substance underlying her claim that her counsel admitted at the hearing that he 1 did not know why the case was filed here, demonstrates forum shopping. For the foregoing 2 reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Unum’s motion to transfer venue. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 9, 2025 6 7 .

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28