T.E. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

W.D. Kentucky

T.E. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

DecidedApril 14, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00202

StatusUnknown

This text of T.E. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (T.E. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

T.E. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, (W.D. Ky. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

T.E. and C.E., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED Plaintiffs, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND vs. DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, and STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, Civil No. 1:22-cv-00010-JNP BENEFIT PLAN, Judge Jill N. Parrish Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Transfer Venue and to Extend Deadline to Respond to Complaint. ECF No. 11. The parties contend that the present action should be transferred to the Western District of Kentucky because the parties have consented to such a transfer and venue in the Western District of Kentucky will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice. The parties also move to extend the deadline for the defendants to respond to the complaint. For the reasons presented herein, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion to transfer venue but DENIES the parties’ motion to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” “The decision of whether to transfer an action is within the discretion of the trial court.” Cmty. TV of Utah, LLC v. Aereo, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1205 (D. Utah 2014). Here, “[t]he parties have stipulated that the action could have been brought in Kentucky,” ECF No. 11 ¶ 5, and all parties have consented to have the case transferred to the Western District of Kentucky. See id. In addition, the court concludes that transferring this action to the Western District of Kentucky would prove more convenient to the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice. Specifically, plaintiffs T.E. and C.E. “permanently reside in Kentucky (Jefferson County),” id. ¥ 9, “Defendant Anthem is a Kentucky company with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky,” id. 7, and defendant Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC “is a Kentucky Professional Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Kentucky,” id. 4] 8. Therefore, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion to transfer venue and ORDERS that the present action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In addition, the parties move to extend the deadline by which defendants must respond to the complaint. However, the court declines to issue an order that binds the transferee court and potentially interferes with that court’s preferred schedule regarding filings. Thus, the court DENIES the parties’ motion to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint. The parties may move for such an extension in the transferee court. DATED April 14, 2022. . BY THE COURT Ne CAWAL el NPA United States District Court Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

T.E. and C.E., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED Plaintiffs, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND vs. DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, and STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, Civil No. 1:22-cv-00010-JNP BENEFIT PLAN, Judge Jill N. Parrish Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Transfer Venue and to Extend Deadline to Respond to Complaint. ECF No. 11. The parties contend that the present action should be transferred to the Western District of Kentucky because the parties have consented to such a transfer and venue in the Western District of Kentucky will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice. The parties also move to extend the deadline for the defendants to respond to the complaint. For the reasons presented herein, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion to transfer venue but DENIES the parties’ motion to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” “The decision of whether to transfer an action is within the discretion of the trial court.” Cmty. TV of Utah, LLC v. Aereo, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1205 (D. Utah 2014). Here, “[t]he parties have stipulated that the action could have been brought in Kentucky,” ECF No. 11 ¶ 5, and all parties have consented to have the case transferred to the Western District of Kentucky. See id. In addition, the court concludes that transferring this action to the Western District of Kentucky would prove more convenient to the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice. Specifically, plaintiffs T.E. and C.E. “permanently reside in Kentucky (Jefferson County),” id. ¥ 9, “Defendant Anthem is a Kentucky company with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky,” id. 7, and defendant Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC “is a Kentucky Professional Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Kentucky,” id. 4] 8. Therefore, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion to transfer venue and ORDERS that the present action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In addition, the parties move to extend the deadline by which defendants must respond to the complaint. However, the court declines to issue an order that binds the transferee court and potentially interferes with that court’s preferred schedule regarding filings. Thus, the court DENIES the parties’ motion to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint. The parties may move for such an extension in the transferee court. DATED April 14, 2022. . BY THE COURT Ne CAWAL el NPA United States District Court Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

T.E. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/te-v-anthem-blue-cross-and-blue-shield-kywd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack