Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled Sept. 9, 2025

Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:25-cv-03638
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Judge Calabrese granted the defendant's unopposed motion to transfer the case from the Northern District of Ohio to the District of Minnesota, where approximately 30 similar data breach lawsuits are already pending.

Who this affects

Kim Gress and the putative class of individuals affected by the Allianz Life Insurance data breach, as well as Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America; the case will now be heard in the District of Minnesota alongside approximately 30 similar actions.

What happened

Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America is a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Kim Gress on behalf of herself and others affected by a data breach that occurred earlier in 2025. Because roughly 30 similar lawsuits arising from the same breach were already pending in the District of Minnesota, the defendant asked the court to move the case there. The plaintiff did not oppose the request.

Federal courts deciding whether to transfer a case to another district weigh factors such as the convenience of the parties and witnesses, where the key events took place, the ease of obtaining evidence, and broader concerns about the efficient use of court resources. When a transfer would simply move the inconvenience from one side to the other without any real benefit, courts generally leave the case where it was filed.

Here, Judge Calabrese found that all relevant factors pointed toward transfer. Because the plaintiff did not oppose the move and because consolidating the case with dozens of similar lawsuits already in Minnesota would serve the convenience of everyone involved and promote efficient use of judicial resources, the court granted the defendant's motion and ordered the case transferred to the District of Minnesota.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 1:25-cv-1774 (N.D. Ohio)
Judge
J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge, Northern District of Ohio
Date
September 9, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Kim Gress filed this putative class action (a lawsuit seeking to represent a larger group of similarly situated people) in the Northern District of Ohio following a data breach that allegedly occurred earlier in 2025. Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America moved to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the federal statute allowing transfer of a civil case to another district where it could have been brought, when doing so serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Plaintiff Kim Gress did not oppose the motion.

Legal Standard

The court cited Sixth Circuit authority requiring district courts to weigh private-interest factors (convenience of the parties, convenience of witnesses, location of operative facts, ability to compel unwilling witnesses, access to sources of proof, and the plaintiff's original choice of forum) and public-interest factors (judicial economy and the interests of justice). The court also noted the principle that transfer is generally not warranted if it merely shifts inconvenience from one party to another.

Analysis and Ruling

The court found that all relevant factors favored transfer. The existence of approximately 30 similar data breach actions already pending in the District of Minnesota weighed heavily in favor of consolidation in that forum, supporting both party and witness convenience and judicial economy. The plaintiff's non-opposition to transfer further reduced any weight that might otherwise be given to her original choice of forum. The court therefore granted the defendant's motion and ordered the clerk to transfer the action to the District of Minnesota.

Effect

The case will now proceed in the District of Minnesota, where it will likely be coordinated with the other similar pending actions.

Reviewer note from the AI+
The opinion header says 'Northern District of Ohio' but the court filing metadata says 'mnd' (District of Minnesota). The opinion text, judge signature, and case number are all consistent with the Northern District of Ohio, so the 'mnd' court metadata appears to be an error in the filing information. The summary reflects what is actually in the opinion text. Reviewer should confirm the correct originating court.
The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.
Gress v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America · Court, Explained