Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190918_0002456.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 23:25:12
Document Index: 775074346

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1404', '§ 1332', '§ 1391', '§ 1406', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1391', '§ 1391']

FindACase™ | Janine Banks v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co.
Janine Banks v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co.
JANINE BANKS, individually and as class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, and SPINE SURGERY ASSOCIATES, et al., individually and as class representatives on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PULBICATION
Defendants Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company (collectively “Defendants” or “Allstate”) have filed the instant motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter, “Complaint”) on two grounds: failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and improper venue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). As an alternative to dismissal, Defendants ask that the Court transfer venue to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs, Janine Banks, Spine Surgery Associates and Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset, have opposed the motion. The Court has considered the papers filed by the parties. It proceeds to rule on the motion without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will transfer this action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Plaintiff Janine Banks is a Pennsylvania resident. Banks sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Although the Complaint does not specify the date of the accident, it alleges that Banks was at the relevant time insured by Allstate under a motor vehicle insurance policy providing “Personal Injury Protection” (“PIP”) benefits for medical treatment of accident-related injuries. According to Defendants’ submission, Banks maintained an insurance policy with Allstate Fire covering two motor vehicles for the policy period September 6, 2011 to March 6, 2012. The Court will hereinafter refer to the relevant insurance policy as the “Policy,” a copy of which is attached to the July 10, 2019 Declaration of Melissa Brill as Exhibit 2. Banks alleges that following her motor vehicle accident, she obtained treatment for her injuries at two health care providers, Spine Surgery Associates and Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset (collectively the “Provider Plaintiffs”). The Provider Plaintiffs are both located in the State of New Jersey.
The crux of this putative class action is that Allstate underpaid PIP benefits under the Policy by applying New Jersey’s auto medical fee schedules. The Complaint alleges that Allstate improperly used the schedule to determine benefits and/or pay providers because Provider Plaintiffs were not subject to those fee schedules. As a result, the Complaint avers, Allstate deprived Banks of the full benefit she is owed under the Policy and paid Provider Plaintiffs an unlawfully reduced amount. Banks purports to represent a class of Pennsylvania insureds who maintained motor vehicle insurance policies with Allstate, were injured in automobile accidents in Pennsylvania, sought treatment outside of Pennsylvania and were allegedly deprived of PIP benefits under their Allstate policies. Provider Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of health care providers that provided care to the aforementioned class of Allstate insureds and were allegedly underpaid by Allstate due to the improper application of a fee schedule.
Banks and the Provider Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey on November 6, 2018. Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 12, 2018, asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The Complaint asserts the following state law claims: breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, violation of Pennsylvania’s Insurance Bad Faith Act, claims by the Provider Plaintiffs for payment of medical billing, and unjust enrichment.
Allstate argues that this action must be dismissed based on the Complaint’s failure to state legally sufficient claims and based on the filing of the action in an improper venue. The Court addresses Allstate’s venue argument, as this basis for the motion pertains to whether this Court is the correct forum for Plaintiffs’ action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) authorizes dismissal of an action for improper venue. Allstate contends that the District of New Jersey is not the proper venue for this action because the Policy contains a forum selection clause, which expressly requires that “any and all lawsuits in any way related to this policy shall be brought, heard, and decided only in a state or federal court located in Pennsylvania.” (Brill Decl., Ex. 2.) The forum selection clause, Defendants argue, renders the District of New Jersey an improper venue for this action. As such, they maintain that the action must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3).
The problem with Defendants’ argument is that it was squarely repudiated by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See 571 U.S. 49 (2013). In that case, the plaintiff had filed suit in Texas federal court even though its contract with the defendant designated Virginia as the parties’ chosen forum. Id. at 52-53. The Atlantic Marine Court rejected the defendant’s effort to dismiss the action for improper venue based on the parties’ contractual selection of another forum. Id. at 55. The Court reasoned that the question of venue is solely governed by federal venue laws, generally 28 U.S.C. § 1391, “and those provisions say nothing about a forum-selection clause.” Id. The Supreme Court held that a forum selection clause therefore has no bearing at all on whether venue is proper. Id. at 55-56. Simply put, under Atlantic Marine, a forum selection clause does not provide grounds for dismissal of an action under either Rule 12(b)(3), for “improper” venue, or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, which allows a federal court to dismiss when a case has been filed in the “wrong” venue. Id. at 55-56.
While it concluded that a forum selection clause cannot be enforced in a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss, the Atlantic Marine Court further held that “the clause may be enforced through a motion to transfer under § 1404(a).” Id. at 59. This holding is significant in the instant litigation because, as an alternative to dismissal of the action, Allstate requests that this Court transfer the action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that transfer of this action is warranted.
Initially, the Court observes that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) indeed provides the applicable standard. “Section 1404(a) provides for the transfer of a case where both the original and the requested venue are proper.” Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995). Transfer of this action falls within section 1404(a) because both the original venue in New Jersey and the requested venue in Pennsylvania are proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Under section 1391(b)(2), a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The claims pled in the Complaint arise primarily from the motor vehicle accident in which Banks was injured, which occurred in Pennsylvania, as well as from the Policy, which was issued to Banks in Milford, Pennsylvania.[1]Even so, a substantial part of the claims for the alleged underpayment of benefits relate to medical treatment rendered to Banks for her injuries, and that treatment was provided in New Jersey.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Because Allstate&rsquo;s request for a transfer of venue is premised on the Policy&rsquo;s forum selection clause, the Court once again looks to the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision in Atlantic Marine for direction. The Court held as follows: &ldquo;When the parties have agreed to a valid forum selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a &sect; 1404(a) motion be denied.&rdquo; Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 62. A transfer analysis under section 1404(a) typically calls for a weighing of private and public factors that will inform the question of whether the transfer would serve the parties&rsquo; convenience and promote the interest of justice. Id. at 62-63. However, the Atlantic Marine Court held that the traditional analysis does not apply where the ...