IN RE CITYMD DATA PRIVACY LITIGATION
2:24-cv-06972
D.N.J.Sep 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs V.A. and T.G., New York residents, allege Summit Health (a New Jersey‑incorporated and headquartered company doing business as CityMD) installed tracking technologies (e.g., Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and Conversions API) on CityMD's website and mobile app that transmitted patients' personally identifiable and protected health information to third‑party advertisers.
- Plaintiffs contend these disclosures contradicted CityMD's privacy policy and HIPAA privacy obligations and led to targeted medical advertising; no written authorizations were given.
- Plaintiffs filed related suits that were consolidated in the District of New Jersey into a consolidated class action asserting claims including violations of the ECPA, negligence, breach of confidence, NY GBL § 349, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.
- Summit Health moved to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); the court assumed, without deciding, that E.D.N.Y. would be a proper venue for purposes of the motion.
- The court applied the Jumara private and public interest factors (and related Third Circuit precedents) and concluded the balance of factors—notably plaintiffs’ forum choice and the locus of the challenged website/configuration decisions at Summit Health’s New Jersey headquarters—weighed against transfer.
- The motion to transfer venue to E.D.N.Y. was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E.D.N.Y. is a proper transferee venue | Plaintiffs did not dispute but emphasized operative acts (server/configuration) occurred in NJ | Summit Health argued events supporting claims occurred in NY (e.g., plaintiff activity) and that E.D.N.Y. has jurisdiction because it manages CityMD NY locations | Court presumed, without deciding, E.D.N.Y. could be a proper venue but resolved transfer under §1404(a) on convenience/public‑interest balance |
| Weight to give plaintiffs' choice of forum | Plaintiffs chose D.N.J.; choice entitled to deference though reduced in class context | Summit sought deference to forum closer to many putative class members in NY | Court gave plaintiffs' choice significant weight (though less than if home forum) and found it weighed against transfer |
| Center‑of‑gravity / where claims arose | Plaintiffs: core acts (installation/configuration of trackers; decisions) occurred at Summit Health HQ in NJ | Summit: plaintiffs accessed site in NY and other NY contacts support E.D.N.Y. venue | Court found center of gravity in NJ (software/decisions at HQ) and this factor weighed against transfer |
| Practical convenience, witnesses, and public interest (including first‑to‑file) | Plaintiffs: witnesses, records, and corporate decisions centered in NJ; parallel NY action filed later | Summit: litigating in NY is more convenient for some non‑NJ employees and NY plaintiffs | Court found witness/location and records factors neutral, practical/public factors (judicial economy, local interest, and first‑to‑file posture) weighed against transfer overall |
Key Cases Cited
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (sets out the private and public interest factors for § 1404(a) analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (purpose of § 1404(a) to prevent unnecessary inconvenience and expense)
- In re McGraw‑Hill Global Educ. Holdings LLC, 909 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 2018) (lists relevant transfer factors under § 1404(a))
- In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2017) (discusses balancing of practical problems and private interest factors)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (specific jurisdiction depends on defendant's contacts with the forum state)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction for corporations tied to place of incorporation and principal place of business)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction for corporations)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2010) (defines corporation's principal place of business for jurisdiction and venue purposes)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (affirms district court discretion under § 1404(a))
- E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988) (discusses application and exceptions to the first‑to‑file rule)