Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER A. DAVIS, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 23-cv-02955-AMO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER

Re: Dkt. No. 27

Before the Court is Defendant New York Life Insurance Company’s (“NYL”) motion to

transfer. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civil 

L.R. 7-6. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the 

relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the following reasons.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Alexander Davis (“Davis”) is a resident of Modesto, California. Ex. A, Disability 

Claim Form (ECF 27-2) at 2.1 Davis is an orthopedic surgeon who is a policyholder of a Long 

Term Disability Income Insurance policy issued by NYL. ECF 2-4 (“Compl.”) ¶ 9. Davis 

suffered serious mental health issues, id. ¶ 1, and received treatment from two medical 

practitioners in Modesto, Dr. Peter Hetnal and Isabel Van Sicklen, MFT. Ex. A, Disability Claim 

Form at 3. He submitted a disability claim to NYL on September 14, 2021, alleging that due to 

his severe mental health struggles, he has been unable to work. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 21-22.

After submitting his disability claim, Davis began seeing a doctor, Dr. Corwin Brink, in 

1

In considering a motion to transfer, the Court may consider evidence outside of the pleadings, 

and it “draw[s] all reasonable inferences and resolve[s] factual conflicts in favor of the nonmoving party.” Hamer v. JP Morgan Chase Long-Term Disability Benefit Plan, No. 22-CV06886-LB, 2023 WL 4053801, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2023) (citation omitted).

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 7
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Stockton, California. ECF 27-4 at 19, 28, 37. Davis submitted to NYL medical records from 

these providers. ECF 27-2, Ex. C at 8-23. As part of NYL’s investigation into Davis’s disability 

claim, an independent psychiatrist who lives outside of California reviewed the records and 

determined that Davis was not totally disabled as required by the policy. ECF 27-2, Ex. F. NYL 

offered Davis the opportunity to attend a virtual Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) and 

when he declined, NYL offered him an in-person IME conducted by a San Francisco-based

doctor, Dr. Robert Johnson. Compl. ¶¶ 33-34. Based on the in-person IME, NYL determined that 

Davis did not meet the policy definition of “covered total disability” and denied his claim on May 

25, 2022. Id. ¶ 38. On September 21, 2022, Davis filed suit against NYL and Dr. Johnson in the 

Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. See generally Compl. Davis 

additionally appealed the claim denial and underwent a second IME on January 23, 2023, with a 

doctor in Sacramento. ECF 27-2, Ex. D at 28-29, Ex. H. Based on the second IME, NYL 

approved Davis’s claim for disability benefits on February 15, 2023, and paid all benefits due 

under the policy.

2

 Id., Ex. D at 30.

Before this case was removed to federal court, the parties litigated transferring the case to 

Stanislaus County, and on June 13, 2023, the San Francisco Superior Court issued tentative rulings 

denying NYL’s motion to transfer venue and granting Dr. Johnson’s motion to transfer venue. 

ECF 2-7. A few hours later, Davis agreed to voluntarily dismiss Dr. Johnson with prejudice, and

Dr. Johnson withdrew his motion to transfer venue to Stanislaus County the following day. ECF 

2-8. NYL then removed the case to this Court on June 16, 2023. ECF 2. NYL’s instant motion to 

transfer to the Eastern District of California followed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts may transfer a case to another district “where it might have been brought” “[f]or the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The 

statute requires that courts first determine whether the case could have been brought where the 

2

It is unclear what additional relief Davis seeks given that NYL approved his disability benefits as 

of the date after the 180-day waiting period and has paid him those benefits. ECF 27-2, Ex. D at 

30.

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 7
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

transfer is sought. State v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 286 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2018). 

If venue is appropriate in the alternative venue, then the court weighs the convenience of the 

parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interest of justice. Id.

In considering whether a transfer of venue is warranted, courts consider several factors, 

including:

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) 

the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating 

to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the 

costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to 

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to 

sources of proof.

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Lax v. Toyota 

Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772, 776 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (in making the determination, a court may 

consider: “(1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the 

witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, 

(6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the 

relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum”).

The party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that “the balance of convenience 

clearly favors transfer.” Lax, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 776 (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n 

v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)). “The defendant must make a strong showing of 

inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. 

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). A motion for 

transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court and must be determined on an 

individualized basis. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Venue in Transferee District

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court must first determine whether the case could have 

been brought in the district where transfer is sought, i.e., where venue is proper, before assessing 

the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see 

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 7
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Bureau of Land Mgmt., 286 F.Supp.3d at 1059.

Davis argues that the action could not have originally been brought in the Eastern District 

of California because when Plaintiff initiated the action in state court, there was no subject matter 

jurisdiction as the action included a non-diverse defendant, Dr. Johnson. ECF 28 (“Response”) at 

4-5. This argument is flawed. First, in cases removed based on diversity of citizenship, federal

courts look to whether there is diversity at the time of removal, not when the case commenced. 

Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n. of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2002). At the time of 

removal, Plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed the non-diverse defendant, resulting in diversity of 

citizenship. Second, the change of venue statute is concerned with whether the transferee court 

“would have been a proper venue and [] would have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller, 15 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3841 (4th ed.); see also 

Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960); Com. Lighting Prod., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 537 F.2d 

1078, 1079 (9th Cir. 1976) (the action “might have been brought” in Michigan if the “‘claim 

arose’ in Michigan, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. s 1391(a), the general venue statute”), not 

with subject matter jurisdiction.

3

 Plaintiff does not contest that venue is proper in the Eastern 

District of California nor that NYL is subject to personal jurisdiction there. ECF 28 (“Response”) 

at 6; see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, the Court concludes that this case could have 

originally been brought in the Eastern District of California and turns to the case-specific analysis

of convenience and fairness. 

B. Section 1404(a) Factors

1. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

Although Plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally entitled to deference, “this deference is 

substantially diminished in several circumstances, including where: (1) the plaintiff’s venue choice 

is not [their] residence; [or] (2) the conduct giving rise to the claims occurred in a different 

3

Indeed, Plaintiff’s suggestion that the venue statute requires federal subject matter jurisdiction to

have been proper within the transferee district when the case commenced does not make sense. It 

would permit plaintiffs to engage in forum selection and avoid transfer merely by suing a nondiverse defendant whom it later drops from the suit.

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 7
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

forum . . .” Burgess v. HP, Inc., No. 16-CV-04784-LHK, 2017 WL 467845, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

3, 2017) (“If the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest 

in the parties or subject matter, [the plaintiff’s] choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.”)

(citations and quotation marks omitted); see Easton v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 20-CV-02193-

HSG, 2020 WL 3639934, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020).

Here, nearly all conduct relevant to Davis’s claims occurred in the Eastern District of 

California. Davis resides in Modesto, California, which is in the Eastern District of California. 

He sought treatment from medical professionals also based in Modesto and in Stockton. ECF 27-

2, Ex. A at 3, Ex. C. at 19. Though the initial IME was conducted in San Francisco, the second 

IME – which ultimately led to the approval of the disability claim – was conducted in Sacramento. 

ECF 27-2, Ex. H at 63. Because Davis resides outside of the Northern District of California and 

much of the relevant activity occurred outside of Northern District, any deference owed to Clark’s 

choice of venue is substantially diminished. See Brown v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. 4:13-

CV-05205 YGR, 2014 WL 715082, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014).

2. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

“The convenience of the witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses, is often the most 

important factor” in ruling on a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a). Grossman v. Johnson 

& Johnson, No. 14-CV-03557-VC, 2015 WL 1743116, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2015) (citing 

cases). However, the “[c]onvenience of a litigant’s employee witnesses is entitled to little weight 

because they can be compelled by their employers to testify regardless of venue.” Brown v., 2014 

WL 715082, at *4 (citing cases). To evaluate this factor, “courts must consider not only the 

number of witnesses, but also the nature and quality of their testimony.” United States ex rel. 

Tutanes-Luster v. Broker Sols., Inc., No. 17-CV-04384-JST, 2019 WL 1024962, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 4, 2019) (quoting Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2009)). 

When “establishing inconvenience to witnesses, the moving party must name the witnesses, state 

their location, and explain their testimony and its relevance.” Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-

CV-729 YGR, 2014 WL 1245880, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014) (quoting Costco Wholesale 

Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1193 (S.D. Cal. 2007)). 

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 5 of 7
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

NYL contends that only one witness, the now-dismissed Dr. Johnson, resides in the 

Northern District of California. ECF 27 (“Motion”) at 13. The remaining witnesses that Davis 

has identified in his initial disclosures reside in the Eastern District of California or out of state.4 

The following non-party witnesses reside in the Eastern District and may testify and provide 

information about Davis’s past and present medical condition: Dr. Corwin Brink, Dr. Kevin 

Knobel, Isabel Van Sicklin, Deana Becker, and Dr. Vladimir Bokarius who conducted the IME 

ultimately approving Davis’s disability claim.

5

 Id. at 7, 13. While many of these witnesses may

fall within the subpoena power of the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) (subpoena power limited to 

within 100 miles of where the person “resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in 

person”), the Eastern District is more convenient to these witnesses.6

As to the parties’ convenience, Davis’s convenience is “entitled to lesser weight here 

because []he chose to sue in a forum where []he does not reside.” See Easton, 2020 WL 3639934, 

at *3 (citing cases). Since Davis resides in the Eastern District of California, a transfer there 

would be more convenient. Davis raises the location of both counsels’ offices, Response at 8,

however, counsel’s convenience is not a relevant factor. See Vasquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l 

Ass’n, 77 F. Supp. 3d 911, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“The convenience of counsel is not considered 

for purposes of deciding whether a venue is convenient for the purposes of § 1404(a)”). NYL’s 

out of state employee witnesses do not weigh in favor or against transfer. Given that many nonparty witnesses reside or work in the Eastern District, and that Davis himself resides there, the 

Court finds that the convenience of the witnesses and parties weighs in favor of transfer. 

4 Davis states that he intends to call Dr. Brad Gould, who resides in the Northern District of 

California, Response at 6, but there is no indication in the records as to the relevance of his 

testimony or his role in assessing Davis’s medical condition. 

5 Davis states that Dr. Bokarius resides in Richmond. Response at 6. Although the office address 

on the psychiatric evaluation states Richmond, California, Dr. Bokarius explains that he conducted 

Davis’s IME in his Sacramento office. ECF 27-2, Ex. H at 63.

6 Davis lists a few out-of-state witnesses and notes that these the convenience factor for 

individuals does not change in the Eastern or Northern District of California. Response at 7-8. 

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 6 of 7
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. Neutral Factors

NYL contends that the remaining factors are neutral or slightly favor transfer. Motion at 

15-16. Although NYL argues that most of the records are in the Eastern District of California, as 

electronic records may be accessed easily in either district, this factor is neutral. See Doe v. Epic 

Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Both districts are equally familiar 

with California law, so this factor is neutral as well. NYL argues that the relative congestion of 

the courts supports transfer, stating that this district had more cases pending than the Eastern 

District, but that the median time from filing to trial was longer in the Eastern District than here. 

Motion at 15-16. This factor does not weigh strongly in favor or against transfer.

B. Balancing of Discretionary Factors

Davis’s choice of forum, as always, weighs against transfer, but is entitled to little 

deference because Davis does not reside in the Northern District of California, and the majority of 

the relevant conduct occurred in Sacramento and Modesto in the Eastern District of California, 

where Plaintiff resides. The convenience of the parties and witnesses weigh in favor of transfer. 

The remaining factors are neutral. In its discretion, the Court concludes that transfer is 

appropriate. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS NYL’s motion to transfer venue. The 

Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer the case to the Central District of California, and to close the 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024

ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 7 of 7