Civil Practice – Venue – Labor & Employment – ERISA

Ravin v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union (Lawyers Weekly No. 004-019-17, 16 pp.) (Max Cogburn Jr., J.) 1:17-cv-00146; W.D.N.C.

Holding: Although ERISA gives this court personal jurisdiction over the Florida defendants, since (1) a related and more comprehensive case is pending in the Northern District of Florida, (2) all the events underlying both cases occurred in Florida, and (3) the case’s only connection to the Western District of North Carolina is that plaintiff chose to move here after leaving defendants’ employ, venue is more appropriate in the Northern District of Florida.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the court transfers this action to the Northern District of Florida.

All defendants have minimum contacts with the United States, and they have failed to demonstrate that this court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over them would result in such extreme inconvenience or unfairness as would outweigh the congressionally articulated policy evidenced by ERISA’s nationwide service of process provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Consequently, this court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants.

However, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the court determines that venue is more appropriate in the Northern District of Florida. It is there that plaintiff worked for defendants. Furthermore, a related lawsuit, based on the same facts, is pending there. That case involves not only the ERISA benefits which are at issue here, but also allegations that plaintiff procured his employment separation agreement through fraudulent misrepresentations.

The court considers the factors set out in Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Grp., Inc., 751 F.Supp. 94 (W.D.N.C. 1990).

Plaintiff’s choice of his home district is given considerable weight; however, that weight is diminished since the conduct giving rise to the complaint did not occur in this forum.

Given that the plan administrator, all defendants, and defendants’ employees reside in the Northern District of Florida, most of the witnesses and documentary evidence in this case is likely to be there as well. While the typical ERISA dispute is resolved on the administrative record, defendant’s claim that the benefits were obtained based on fraudulent representations will require discovery. The majority of that evidence is likely to reside outside this district.

It is true that the Northern District of Florida is facing a judicial emergency. Even so, the related case is already being considered within that district. It will not add to court congestion to transfer the case and that the related cases be consolidated. However, having two actions considered on the same facts in two judicial districts is inefficient.

The center of gravity in this case is Florida. While ERISA is a federal statute, plaintiff, a former employee of a Florida company, has brought suit about a Florida plan, administered in Florida.

Moreover, the contracts related to this case are Florida contracts. Florida has a strong interest in this dispute, especially as plaintiff accrued the benefits at issue there, the plan is administered there, and the contract governing those benefits is a Florida contract. In addition, the agreement included a choice of law clause that the contract would be governed by Florida law.

Finally, since the related case in the Northern District of Florida involves several state law claims, the risk of conflicts of law is best avoided by having a Florida-based court handle this matter.

Transferred.