Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-03638
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

KIM GRESS, individually and on ) Case No. 1:25-cv-1774 behalf of herself and all others ) similarly situated, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese ) Plaintiff, ) Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd ) v. ) ) ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) )

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kim Gress filed this class action lawsuit following a data breach earlier this year. Some 30 similar actions are pending in the District of Minnesota. Defendant moves to transfer the case to that forum, and Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. When “ruling on a motion to transfer,” a district court should consider “the private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, public-interest concerns, as well as whether the transfer is in the interests of justice.” Boling v. Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC, 771 F. App’x 562, 567 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc., 989 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991)). District courts balance multiple often-competing factors when weighing a motion to transfer venue: the convenience for witnesses, the location of operative facts, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, the interests of justice, the ease of accessing sources of proof, convenience of the parties, and the plaintiffs choice of forum. See Means v. United States Conf. of Cath. Bishops, 836 F.3d 648, 651 (6th Cir. 2016) (declining to reverse the district court’s venue decision based on those factors). In weighing the private- and public-interest factors, “if a change of venue serves merely to shift the inconvenience from one party to another, a change of venue is generally not warranted.” Siegfried v. Takeda Pharms. N. Am., Inc., No. 1:10-ev- 02713, 2011 WL 1430333, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2011) (citations omitted). Here, all these factors point to transfer of the case. Although Plaintiff chose to file suit in the Northern District of Ohio, she does not oppose transfer. Given the large number of similar cases already pending in the District of Minnesota, the convenience of the parties and witnesses favor transfer, as does judicial economy. For all these reasons, the Court finds that the interests of justice support transfer of this case to the District of Minnesota. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer and ORDERS the Clerk to TRANSFER this action to the District of Minnesota. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 9, 2025

J. Philip Calabrese United States District Judge Northern District of Ohio