Adam v. CaringBridge
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04555
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
In Adam v. CaringBridge, Inc., Judge Orrick granted CaringBridge's motion to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the District of Minnesota, finding that a forum selection clause in CaringBridge's Terms of Use — which plaintiff Janice Adam agreed to when creating her account — required the lawsuit to be brought in Minnesota.
People who used the CaringBridge website and whose sensitive medical or personal information may have been shared with Google or Meta through tracking code; specifically, the named plaintiff Janice Adam and members of the proposed nationwide and California classes. The ruling determines where — Minnesota rather than California — the lawsuit will proceed.
What happened
In Adam v. CaringBridge, Inc., plaintiff Janice Adam, a California resident, sued CaringBridge — a Minnesota-based nonprofit that runs a website for people sharing health journeys — alleging that the company secretly allowed Google and Meta to intercept users' sensitive medical information through tracking code embedded in the website. Adam filed the lawsuit as a proposed class action in the Northern District of California, raising claims under California privacy law and a federal wiretapping statute.
CaringBridge moved to transfer the case to Minnesota, pointing to a forum selection clause in its Terms of Use that required any legal dispute to be filed in a state or federal court in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adam argued the clause should not apply because she was required to share sensitive health information before agreeing to the terms, and that enforcing the clause would strip California users of important privacy protections. The court found that users actually agree to the Terms of Use before inputting sensitive health information, that Adam did agree to the terms when creating her account, and that any disputes about which state's law applies can be sorted out by the Minnesota court.
Judge Orrick granted CaringBridge's motion to transfer and declined to rule on CaringBridge's separate motion to dismiss. After weighing the standard transfer factors — including witness convenience, costs, and the parties' connections to each forum — the court concluded that the forum selection clause was the decisive factor and that the case should be heard in the District of Minnesota. All future hearings before Judge Orrick were canceled, and the case will proceed in Minnesota.
The detailed version
In this putative class action, plaintiff Janice Adam, a resident of Castro Valley, California, sued CaringBridge, Inc. ('CaringBridge'), a Minnesota nonprofit, alleging that CaringBridge allowed Google (via Google Analytics) and Meta (via the Meta Pixel) to intercept users' sensitive medical and personally identifying information in real time as it was entered on CaringBridge's website, without user consent. Adam brought claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ('CIPA'), the California Constitution, and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act ('ECPA'), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1) et seq., on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and a California subclass.
CaringBridge filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), or in the alternative to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The key issue was a forum selection clause in CaringBridge's Terms of Use, which states that 'any legal action or proceeding relating to your access to, or use of, this service or these terms of use shall be instituted only in a state or federal court located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA.'
Venue Under § 1406(a)
The court first addressed whether venue was proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It noted that a forum selection clause cannot be used to defeat venue under § 1406(a) — it can only be enforced through a § 1404(a) transfer motion, per the Supreme Court's ruling in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013). The court then found that, setting the clause aside, venue was arguably proper in the Northern District under § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the relevant events may have occurred there — specifically, the alleged interception of plaintiff's data at her browser in California. The court treated this as a close question but assumed for purposes of the motion that venue was proper, because the transfer analysis controlled the outcome regardless.
Transfer Under § 1404(a) — Could the Case Have Been Brought in Minnesota?
The court confirmed that the District of Minnesota has subject matter jurisdiction (via the Class Action Fairness Act, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over class actions with over 100 members, minimal diversity of citizenship, and more than $5 million in controversy), proper venue (CaringBridge is incorporated and headquartered there), and general personal jurisdiction over CaringBridge.
Balancing the Jones Factors for Transfer
The court applied the multi-factor test from Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000): - Location of relevant agreements: Neutral, because plaintiff asserts statutory and constitutional claims, not contract claims. - State most familiar with governing law: Largely neutral; while a California court may be marginally more familiar with California law, federal courts are capable of applying other states' law, and this factor was given little weight. - Plaintiff's choice of forum: Given reduced weight in a class action context, and further diminished by the valid forum selection clause. The court rejected Adam's argument that the clause was inapplicable because she provided some information before agreeing to the terms — finding that users agree to the Terms of Use before inputting sensitive health data. The court also rejected an argument based on Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187, distinguishing In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litigation, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016), which involved a different procedural posture. The court held that choice-of-law disputes can be resolved by the Minnesota court. - Parties' contacts with the forum: Largely neutral or slightly against transfer; CaringBridge does business in California, but the nationwide class has minimal ties to the Northern District beyond the named plaintiff's location. - Witness convenience: Favors transfer; all identified potential witnesses are in Minnesota, and while remote technology could ease some burdens, it would not eliminate inconvenience at trial. - Costs of litigation: Favors transfer; most documentary evidence is in Minnesota, and costs for plaintiff are reduced because this is a class action. - Compulsory process for non-party witnesses: Neutral; neither party addressed this, and both districts presumably have equal subpoena power. - Ease of access to evidence: Neutral; the digital age makes electronic transfer of documents easy, and CaringBridge did not show evidence would be unavailable electronically. - Policy interests and court congestion: Both neutral; California has an interest in protecting its residents, but Minnesota equally has an interest in regulating its in-state businesses; the difference in case resolution times (20.5 months in the Northern District vs. 8.7 months in Minnesota) was not found significant enough to tip the balance.
Conclusion
Judge William H. Orrick granted CaringBridge's motion to transfer. The case was ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The motion to dismiss was not reached. All pending hearings before Judge Orrick were vacated.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.