District Court Denies Unum’s Motion to Transfer Venue In ERISA Disability Case; Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Upheld

In Williams v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 24-CV-24113-RAR, 2025 WL 1591213 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2025), on Defendant Unum Life insurance Company of America’s motion to transfer venue, Southern Florida District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II denied the motion and upheld Plaintiff’s choice of venue,  finding that the action should not be transferred to the District of Utah.

Plaintiff Williams filed the instant action on October 23, 2024, in the Southern District of Florida alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Almost seven months later on May 19, 2025, Unum filed the motion seeking transfer of the action to the District of Utah, asserting that the Utah forum was more appropriate.

The court analyzed Unum’s motion, applying the two-step test used to determine whether transfer is warranted under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) – First, a case can only be transferred to a “district where the action might have been brought” in the first instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Second, the transfer must be warranted on grounds of convenience to the parties and the interests of justice. In addressing this second prong, courts analyze several factors, including the following: (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.

First, Plaintiff did not dispute, and the court agreed that the action might have been brought in the District of Utah. Venue is proper in the District of Utah because the alleged breach took place in the District of Utah, where Plaintiff resided when she submitted her claims and when Defendant denied those claims.

As to the second prong, the court found that the convenience to the parties and the interests of justice did not favor transfer. The court noted that factors such as convenience of the parties, convenience to witnesses, location of documents, and availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses were not of any great weight because, as an ERISA claim for benefits, it is unlikely that the case will go to trial and will almost certainly be decided on the papers. The court also noted that familiarity with governing law was not of concern because all federal courts are competent to handle ERISA claims.

On the remaining factors, the court found that the choice of forum and locus of operative facts weighed in favor of transfer. The court noted that generally a plaintiff’s choice of forum should be accorded considerable deference, but not when the operative facts have no obvious connection to the district. Plaintiff resides in and received benefits and medical treatment in Utah. And the only apparent connection with the Southern District of Florida is that Plaintiff’s attorney is located there.

However, the final decisive considerations – interests of justice and timeliness – weighed in favor of denying transfer. Unum delayed pursuing the motion to transfer for seven months, waiting until one week before the close discovery and three weeks before the deadline for dispositive motions to file it. The impetus for doing so was the discovery of medical records outside the administrative record that favor Plaintiff’s case. These extra-record documents are admissible in the 11^th Circuit (Florida) but not in the 10^th Circuit (Utah). The court found this legal difference was relevant in illuminating the parties’ motivations. Whatever motivated Plaintiff to file the case in the Southern District of Florida must have been apparent from day one, and Unum could have moved for transfer at any time. As such, the interests of justice and timeliness would not be well served by allowing transfer at this late date.

If Unum or your disability insurer has denied or otherwise limited your ERISA benefits claim, contact us for assistance.