Szubinski v. SJM Premier Medical Group LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
COURTNEY SZUBINSKI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SJM PREMIER MEDICAL GROUP LLC,
SCOTT J. MISCOVICH LLC, SCOTT J.
MISCOVICH, M.D.;
Defendants.
CIV. NO. 22-00533 LEK-RT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 20, 2024, this Court issued an order
transferring venue to the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (“2/20 Order”). [Dkt. no. 52. 1 ] Before the
Court is Plaintiff Courtney Szubinski’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for
reconsideration of the 2/20 Order, filed March 5, 2024 (“Motion
for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 55.] Defendants SJM Premier
Medical Group LLC (“SJM”), Scott J. Miscovich, M.D. LLC doing
business as Premier Medical Group (“PMG” and collectively
“Corporate Defendants”), and Scott J. Miscovich, M.D. (“Dr.
Miscovich” and collectively “Defendants”) filed their memorandum
in opposition on March 22, 2024. [Dkt. no. 57.] Plaintiff filed
a reply on April 3, 2024. [Dkt. no. 58.] The Court has
1 The 2/20 Order is also available at 2024 WL 691375.
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 1 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

2
considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing
matter pursuant to Rule LR7.1(d) of the Local Rules of Practice
for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
(“Local Rules”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in
part. The Motion for Reconsideration is granted insofar as the
case is not transferred to the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, and Plaintiff will be allowed to
conduct discovery relating to venue. The Motion for
Reconsideration is denied in all other respects.
DISCUSSION
The factual and procedural background of this case is
set forth in the 2/20 Order, and it need not be repeated here.
I. 	Standard
The 2/20 Order was an interlocutory order. See Boswell
v. Foss, Case No. CV 20-3469 JAK(PVC), 2020 WL 8619785, at *1
n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (“Because a transfer of venue does
not address the merits of the parties’ claims, but simply
changes the forum of an action, courts routinely find that it is
a non-dispositive matters . . . .” (collecting cases)). The
Motion for Reconsideration therefore must be brought on one of
the following grounds: “(a) Discovery of new material facts not
previously available; (b) Intervening change in law; and/or
(c) Manifest error of law or fact.” Local Rule LR60.1. A motion
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 2 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

3
for reconsideration must “demonstrate reasons why the court
should reconsider its prior decision,” and “set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision.” Fisher v. Kealoha, 49 F. Supp. 3d
727, 734 (D. Hawai`i 2014) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). 2 Mere disagreement with a previous order is an
insufficient basis for reconsideration. Id. at 735. A court has
“considerable discretion” in deciding a motion for
reconsideration. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101,
1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
II. 	Venue in the District of Hawai`i or the District of Arizona
Venue in Title VII cases is exclusively governed by
Title 42 United States Code Section 2000e-5(f)(3). Johnson v.
Payless Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 587-88 (9th Cir.
1991) (per curiam). Under Section 2000e-5(f)(3), “venue is
proper in both the forum where the employment decision is made
and the forum in which that decision is implemented or its
effects are felt.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 506 (9th Cir. 2000). At issue in the
2/20 Order was where the employment decision at issue,
specifically the decision to terminate Plaintiff, was made.
Plaintiff argued the decision to terminate her was made in
2 The Ninth Circuit affirmed. 855 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2017).
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 3 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

4
Hawai`i, while Defendants contended the decision was made in
Arizona. See 2/20 Order, 2024 WL 691375, at *3.
Plaintiff argues new evidence from a recent production
of discovery warrants reconsideration of the 2/20 Order. [Motion
for Reconsideration, Mem. in Supp. at 6-9.] Plaintiff contends
the new evidence demonstrates that Rene Mansanas (“Mansanas”)
made the recommendation to terminate Plaintiff, Defendants’
Arizona Director, Krista Romero-Cardenas (“Romero-Cardenas”)
approved the recommendation, and Miscovich confirmed the
decision to terminate. [Id. at 6 (citing Exh. 2 (Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants, Dated January 24, 2024) (“Interrogatory Response”)
at Interrogatory No. 1).] Plaintiff argues this new evidence
demonstrates Miscovich was the final decisionmaker, and thus
that the decision to terminate Plaintiff occurred in Hawai`i.
[Id. at 6-8.]
The new evidence consists of Defendants’ admission
that Mansanas did not make the final decision to terminate
Plaintiff, and Defendants’ denial that Miscovich did make the
final decision to terminate Plaintiff in Hawai`i. [Id., Exh. 1
(Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Requests for
Admissions to Defendants, Dated January 24, 2024) at Request for
Admission Nos. 2, 3.] Further, Defendants stated in their
answers to interrogatories that:
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 4 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

5
The decision to terminate Plaintiff was made
after there was a slowdown and decrease of
business in Arizona. The decision was made after
ascertaining the costs of doing business in
Arizona. Diana Gould knew of Defendants’ need to
manage the size of their staff. Rene Mansanas
(fka Rene Pagaoa) and Shanelle Starrett created a
list of the Arizona location’s salaries and a
chart of the leadership team. See Defendants’
Response to Plaintiffs Second Request for
Production of Documents. The decision on
employees to terminate was based on, inter alia,
the list of salaries, leadership team chart, site
functions, and Rene Mansanas’ evaluations of
operations in Arizona. Krista Romero-Cardenas,
Defendants’ former Arizona State Director,
approved the recommendations to terminate the
Arizona staff and that Plaintiffs termination
would not impair Defendants’ Arizona location’s
daily operations. After review of all the
information, Scott J. Miscovich, MD confirmed the
decision to terminate the staff identified at the
Arizona location, which included Plaintiff.
[Interrogatory Response at Interrogatory No. 1.] The new
evidence also includes the purpose of Mansanas’s travel to
Arizona, and her travel log during the relevant period. [Id. at
Interrogatory No. 2.] Finally, the newly discovered evidence
includes emails between Miscovich, Mansanas, and Shanelle
Starrett, in which Miscovich asks for input on reorganizing and
downsizing, and notes the combined salary amount of the
management team should be decreased. [Motion for
Reconsideration, Exh. 3 (email string dated 6/21/22 and email
string dated 6/15/22) at SJM000004-05.] In their memorandum in
opposition, Defendants put forth a declaration by Mansanas, in
which Mansanas states that Romero-Cardenas was based on Arizona,
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 5 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

6
and approved the termination of Plaintiff while in Arizona.
[Mem. in Opp., Declaration of Rene Mansanas at ¶¶ 3-4.] Finally,
in her reply, Plaintiff presents text messages sent by Romero-
Cardenas to Plaintiff on June 21, 2022, which indicate Romero-
Cardenas was “still learning” about the decision to terminate
Plaintiff and others. [Reply, Declaration of Courtney Szubinski,
Exh. 4 (text message thread titled PMG Site Lead Group Chat in
which Tiffany Branson stated Plaintiff and others were “let go
from PMG today”); id., Exh. 5 (text message from Romero-
Cardenas, dated 6/21/22, stating “I’m still learning about this
massive change”).]
While this evidence does not conclusively establish
that Miscovich made the decision to terminate Plaintiff in
Hawai`i, it indicates that the termination decision may possibly
have been made in Hawai`i by Miscovich. In deciding a motion
brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), if
factual issues are contested, the court must “draw all
reasonable inferences and resolve the factual conflicts in favor
of the non-moving party or hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing
on the disputed facts.” Chey v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 983 F.
Supp. 2d 1219, 1227 (D. Hawai`i 2013) (citing Murphy v.
Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2004)).
In light of the newly discovered evidence, the Court finds that
reconsideration of the portion of the 2/20 Order transferring
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 6 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

7
venue is warranted. However, even considering the newly
discovered evidence, the Court cannot determine if venue is
proper in Hawai`i. As such, the Court will allow Plaintiff to
engage in reasonable discovery pertaining to venue. The Court
DIRECTS Defendants to file a motion for transfer of venue after
the record is more fully developed regarding where the
employment decision(s) at issue occurred.
Given this Court’s ruling on the Motion for
Reconsideration, the Joint Motion to Stay Deadlines Pending
Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration, filed April 16, 2024,
[dkt. no. 60,] is denied as moot. However, the parties are
directed to contact the magistrate judge to schedule a status
conference to discuss the limited discovery process permitted by
this Order. The magistrate judge shall also set a deadline for
the filing of Defendants’ motion for transfer of venue.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, filed March 5, 2024, is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED
insofar as the case is not transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, and Plaintiff will
be allowed to conduct discovery relating to venue. The Motion
for Reconsideration is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 7 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

8
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, May 2, 2024.
COURTNEY SZUBINSKI VS. SJM PREMIER MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, ET AL; CV
22-00533 LEK-RT; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Case 1:22-cv-00533-LEK-RT Document 61 Filed 05/02/24 Page 8 of 8
PageID.<pageID>