Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01123/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01123-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDY L. CURLIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1123-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

vs. SHOW CAUSE RE: VENUE

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Cindy Curlis, a resident of Arizona, filed this action bringing ERISA claims

arising from denial of her long term disability claim. Of the named Defendants, only Cricket

Communications, LLC, her former employer, is found in this District. Life Insurance Company

of North America (CIGNA) has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The complaint

did not make clear what role, if any, Cricket played in the denial of her claims, nor how

Cricket might be liable. Nor did it explain how her claims arose in this District.

The Court therefore ordered Curlis to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for improper venue. Curlis filed a response asserting that venue was proper

anywhere any Defendant could be "found," but not addressing recent Supreme Court

precedent regarding what it meant for an entity to be "found" in a judicial district. The

response also conflated this district, the Southern District of California, with the State of 

/ / /

- 1 - 15cv1123

Case 3:15-cv-01123-LAB-JLB Document 10 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 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

California. In a second order, the Court explained why this response was insufficient, and

directed Curlis to supplement her response. She has now filed a supplemental brief.

Under ERISA’s venue provision, venue is proper in any district where the plan is

administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found.

29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Although the Court pointed out the difference between the state of

California and the Southern District of California, Curlis’ responses continue to treat them as

one and the same. For example, the response points to events and CIGNA employees in

Glendale (which is in the Central District of California), and to CIGNA’s presence and

activities in California generally, arguing they help show venue is proper here. 

Curlis also argued that Daimler AG v. Bauman, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751

(2015) and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846,

2851 (2011) should be read narrowly to apply only to non-U.S. entities doing business in the

U.S. The Court rejects this approach, which it finds inconsistent with the cases’ reasoning

and analysis. See Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2851 (identifying standard for determining whether

sister-state or foreign-country corporations are amenable to suit in the forum); Daimler, 134

S.Ct. at 752, 761–62 (analyzing personal jurisdiction over an LLC organized and based in

the US, and determining that its California contacts were insufficient to render a defendant

amenable to suit in California). See also id. at 762 n.20 (noting that merely doing business

in a forum is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction).

Curlis has, however, pointed to two factors that may support jurisdiction here. First,

she notes that CIGNA issued the policy at issue in this case to Cricket, in this district. This

may support specific personal jurisdiction over CIGNA, which in turn could make venue

proper here. Second, while she is unsure whether Cricket is a proper Defendant, Cricket is

named as the plan’s agent for service of process and is formally named as plan administrator

in the summary plan description (even though that same document makes clear that benefits

determinations are made by CIGNA only, and Cricket serves as the claimant’s agent). (See,

e.g., Docket no. 9-1 at 16–18 (claim provisions, requiring that written notices of claims be

sent to CIGNA, who will make the determination), 13 ("The Employer [Cricket] is acting as

- 2 - 15cv1123

Case 3:15-cv-01123-LAB-JLB Document 10 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 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

your agent for transactions relating to this insurance. You shall not consider any actions of

the Employer as actions of the Insurance Company.")) 

Although this is a fairly thin argument for proper venue, the Court concludes it would

be better tested in adversarial proceedings, after Defendants have appeared in this case (if

they wish to challenge it). The order to show cause is therefore DISCHARGED, without

prejudice to Defendants challenging venue or personal jurisdiction, and without prejudice to

any party later seeking transfer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 18, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv1123

Case 3:15-cv-01123-LAB-JLB Document 10 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 3