Prince v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company
3:16-cv-00502
D. Nev.Mar 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Prince (Idaho resident) seeks declaratory relief that his Oregon Mutual auto policy (issued in Idaho) provides $100,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for injuries from a June 30, 2011 Nevada car accident.
- Liability insurer for the tortfeasor paid $100,000; plaintiff alleges the $200,000 aggregate UIM availability results in $100,000 UIM benefits from Oregon Mutual.
- Oregon Mutual is an Oregon corporation; the insurance contract at issue was negotiated and executed in Idaho and Oregon Mutual wrote policies in Idaho.
- Plaintiff sued in Nevada federal court (D. Nev.). Oregon Mutual moved (in the alternative) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or to dismiss/transfer for improper venue, or transfer for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court found the action could have been brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (Southern Division) and that convenience and fairness factors weighed strongly in favor of transfer.
- The court transferred the action to the District of Idaho, Southern Division, and denied the remaining portions of Oregon Mutual’s omnibus motion without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Prince chose Nevada forum where accident occurred; venue proper under § 1391(b)(2) | Idaho is more convenient; contract formed and denial occurred in Idaho; Idaho court has jurisdiction | Transfer granted to D. Idaho under § 1404(a) (convenience and justice weigh for transfer) |
| Whether the case could have been brought in Idaho | Plaintiff did not dispute Idaho as alternative forum | Idaho is proper: venue, diversity, and personal jurisdiction exist | Court: action could have been brought in D. Idaho; favors transfer |
| Personal jurisdiction over Oregon Mutual in Nevada | Prince asserted venue in Nevada; argued case belongs here | Oregon Mutual questioned Nevada personal jurisdiction (limited Nevada contacts) | Court declined to decide Nevada personal jurisdiction because § 1404(a) transfer appropriate regardless; noted substantial question exists |
| Disposition of other motions in Oregon Mutual’s omnibus motion | N/A | N/A | Other motions denied without prejudice to renew in new forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (case-by-case convenience and fairness inquiry)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (a district court may transfer under § 1404(a) without deciding personal jurisdiction)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1962) (transfer under venue statute may be appropriate even absent determination of jurisdiction)