Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05596/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05596-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN M. REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY 

UNION AND INDUSTRY 

INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05596-JST 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER 

Re: ECF No. 20

Before the Court is a Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by 

Defendants Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund, Steven 

Bertelli, David B. Durkee, Jethro A. Head, Art Montminy, Robert Oakley, James Rivers, Randy 

D. Roark, Barbara Brasier, Travis Clemens, Jon McPherson, Lou Minella, Doug Ruygrok, and 

John Wagner. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff Juan M. Reyes opposes the motion. ECF No. 32. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

In this putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(“ERISA”), Plaintiff challenges an amendment to the Bakery and Confectionery Union and 

Industry International Pension Fund (the “Pension Fund”), a multi-employer defined benefit 

pension plan. Compl., ECF No. 1. More than four hundred employers across the United States

currently make contributions to the plan for the purpose of providing pension benefits to their 

eligible employees. Declaration of John Beck (“Beck Decl.”), ECF No. 21 ¶ 11. As of 2011, 46 

of 216 contributing employers were located in California. Declaration of Thomas O. Sinclair 

(“Sinclair Decl.”), ECF No. 33, Ex. 5 ¶¶ 4-5. The employee participants live throughout the 

United States. Beck Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff Reyes is a participant in the plan and a resident of South 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 8
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

San Francisco, California. Compl. ¶ 3. 

The Pension Fund’s principal office is located at 10401 Connecticut Avenue in 

Kensington, Maryland. Compl. ¶ 4. The pension plan is administered, most of the Pension Fund’s 

records are kept, and decisions surrounding the challenged amendment were made, at this office. 

Beck Decl. ¶¶ 27, 32. The thirteen individual Defendants, who are trustees of the Pension Fund, 

live in California (outside this judicial district), Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, 

Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. Id. ¶ 39-40. Two trustees work in Kensington, 

Maryland. Id. ¶ 41. 

Reyes filed his class action complaint on December 23, 2014. A second action challenging 

the same plan amendment, Tagliareni et al. v. Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry 

International Pension Fund Pension Plan et al., No. 15-cv-00171, was filed in the Southern District 

of New York on January 9, 2015. ECF No. 22-7. The plaintiffs in that action have advised that 

court that they “have determined that it would be best for all concerned to combine the two current 

cases to conserve judicial and client resources.” ECF No. 33-1 at 2. Accordingly, they have 

stated that “upon a ruling by the Court in the Reyes case with respect to the transfer motion, we 

will abide by that decision and join with Plaintiffs’ counsel to file an Amended Complaint.” Id. 

The Tagliareni plaintiffs intend to dismiss their case in the Southern District of New York without 

prejudice. Id.

This Court has jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Where venue is proper, “[f]or the convenience of the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of Section 1404(a) is to “prevent 

the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against 

unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). It places “discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions 

for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 8
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 

U.S. at 622). In deciding a motion to transfer under Section 1404, a court must weigh “a number 

of case-specific factors.” Id. 

For example, the court may consider: (1) the location where the 

relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that 

is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the 

contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen 

forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, 

(7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of 

unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources 

of proof. 

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party bears 

the burden to show that the proposed transferee district is the more appropriate forum for the 

action. Id. at 499. 

ERISA’s venue provisions permit a plaintiff to bring an ERISA action where: (1) the plan 

is administered; (2) a breach took place; or (3) a defendant resides or may be found. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(e)(2). These provisions give ERISA plaintiffs an expansive range of permissible venue 

locations. Varsic v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 607 F.2d 

245, 248 (9th Cir. 1979). 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek an order transferring this action to the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 20. They argue that the two existing cases, and any future challenges 

to the amendment at issue, should be resolved in one district court to avoid wasting resources and 

risking inconsistent judgments. Id. at 1. Defendants propose that the District of Maryland is a 

more appropriate forum because it has the strongest connection to the dispute, has a less 

demanding caseload than the Northern District of California, is the location of all of the relevant 

documentary evidence, and is more convenient for witnesses, parties, and counsel. Id. at 1-2. 

Plaintiff opposes transfer, arguing that this would only shift the inconvenience of litigation from 

one party to another. ECF No. 32 at 8. 

A. Venue is Proper in the District of Maryland

In considering a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court must first 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 8
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

determine whether the action could have been brought in the target district. Hoffman v. Blaski, 

363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). Because the pension plan is administered in Kensington, Maryland, 

venue would be proper in the District of Maryland. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) (an ERISA action 

“may be brought in the district where the plan is administered”). Accordingly, the Court turns to 

the question of whether the action should be transferred “[f]or the convenience of parties and 

witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

B. Consolidation of Related Actions

At the outset, the Court considers Defendants’ argument that the proposed transfer of 

venue is in the interest of justice because it will allow the consolidation of this case with 

Tagliareni and any additional duplicative actions filed in the future. ECF No. 20 at 8-10 (citing 

Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960) (“To permit a situation in which 

two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District 

Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to 

prevent.”)). The Tagliareni plaintiffs have expressed their intention to join this action, either here 

in the Northern District of California or, if the case is transferred, in the District of Maryland. 

ECF No. 33-1 at 2. Future duplicative actions, if filed, could be transferred to either district. 

Defendants acknowledge that, under the “first to file” rule, four similar challenges to a 

prior plan amendment were transferred to the Southern District of New York, the venue of the first 

two cases filed, rather than to Maryland. See ECF No. 20 at 4; ECF No. 35 at 5 n.3; Ward v. 

Follett Corp., 158 F.R.D. 645, 648 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“The well-established ‘first to file’ rule 

allows a district court to transfer, stay or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has been filed 

in another federal court.” (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th 

Cir. 1991)). Nevertheless, they argue that a district court might decline to transfer a not-yet-filed 

duplicative case to the Northern District of California “to give consideration to the convenience of 

the parties and witnesses,” and that this would unnecessarily waste resources and risk inconsistent 

results. ECF No. 35 at 3-5; see Ward, 158 F.R.D. at 648 (recognizing a discretionary exception to 

the first to file rule where “the balance of convenience weighs in favor of the later-filed action”). 

The possibility that an unnamed district court might choose to disregard the first to file rule and 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 8
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

decline to transfer a not-yet-filed case to the Northern District of California is too speculative to 

weigh in this Court’s analysis. 

The Court therefore concludes that the consolidation of related actions does not weigh in 

favor of either party.

C. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

Generally, “a plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded great deference in ERISA cases.” 

Jacobson v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 105 F.3d 1288, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 

525 U.S. 432 (1999). On the other hand, “when an individual brings a derivative suit or represents 

a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 

730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendants argue that Reyes’s choice of forum is entitled to 

“diminished” deference because his suit is a class action and the operative facts took place outside 

California. ECF No. 20 at 14. 

Reyes filed suit in the district where he resides, where he earned his pension credits, and 

where he pursued administrative remedies prior to this litigation. ECF No. 32 at 1-3. His choice 

of forum is entitled to deference, even though this factor is accorded less weight in a class action 

context. It is worth noting that a class has not yet been certified and, if it is certified and Reyes is 

appointed class representative, he will “still bear a great deal of responsibility.” David v. Alphin, 

No. 06-cv-04763-WHA, 2007 WL 39400, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007). Furthermore, although 

the other putative class members are scattered across the country, there is no evidence that they are 

concentrated in Maryland or indeed in any state,1or that they will need to appear in this action. 

This factor weighs against transfer. 

D. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

Convenience to the parties weighs in favor of neither party. The Pension Fund is located 

in the District of Maryland, and its employees reside in and around Maryland. For the Fund, “the 

Northern District of California is about the least convenient forum available.” ECF No. 35 at 4

 

1

 Notably, although Defendants provide information regarding the percentage of plan participants 

who reside “East of the Mississippi River,” Beck Decl. ¶¶ 15-16, they elect not to state the 

percentage who live in California or Maryland specifically. 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 8
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(emphasis in original).

2 Reyes, who depends on social security disability benefits, resides in the 

Northern District of California, and asserts that litigation in Maryland would result in “nearly 

impossible inconvenience.” ECF No. 32 at 7. No individual Defendant resides in either district. 

The putative class members are spread across the country. 

Plaintiff suggests that any inconvenience to Defendants will be minimal because the case 

will likely involve little discovery, drawing a comparison with prior litigation involving the Fund. 

ECF No. 32 at 7; see also Alcantara v. Bakery & Confectionery Union and Industry International 

Pension Plan, 751 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2014). On the one hand, there is no way to predict at this stage 

how much discovery, if any, this case will entail. Moreover, Defendants are correct that the 

allegations in the complaint, including the claim that the trustee Defendants breached their 

fiduciary duty to plan participants, are likely to require more factual development than the claims 

at issue in Alcantara. ECF No. 35 at 8-10. On the other hand, as Defendants conceded at today’s 

hearing, discovery concerning persons outside California will likely take place in their home 

states, rather than in this district. Although it is possible that the Defendants will need to travel to 

California for trial, the time and resources expended on discovery will greatly outweigh those 

spent on trial, which the parties estimate will last only three to five days. ECF No. 34 at 13. None 

of the individual defendants live in Maryland, so the question is not whether they will need to 

travel, but how far. The Court finds the inconvenience to Defendants of litigating in this district to 

be minor. 

In turn, Defendants attempt to minimize the relevance of inconvenience to Plaintiff by 

arguing that his participation is unnecessary to the disposition of a class action. ECF No. 35 at 7-

8. But Reyes is still likely to testify at trial on his own behalf and has an interest in attending the 

trial and any important hearings. See David, 2007 WL 39400, at *3. The Court will not grant a 

motion to transfer simply to shift the inconvenience to the plaintiff. Decker Coal. Co. v. 

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The fact that Defendant is alleged 

to be a financially fragile pension plan, ECF No. 35 at 8 n.7, does not change this analysis. 

 

2 Given that the Northern District of California is home to three international airports, Defendants’ 

use of the word “least” is perhaps a touch of hyperbole. 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 8
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Convenience to witnesses weighs only slightly in favor of transfer. Defendants state that 

witnesses with relevant knowledge of the certification of the plan as being in critical status and the 

adoption of the challenged amendment live in or near Maryland. ECF No. 20 at 11-12. They list 

Robert Bergin, the retired Executive Director of the Pension Fund and a resident of Delaware; the 

New York-based actuaries who certified the plan as being in critical status; and the Pension 

Fund’s staff, who live in and around Maryland. Id.; Beck Decl. ¶¶ 33-37. The District of 

Maryland is more convenient for all of these witnesses, but since they are beyond the subpoena 

power of this Court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), they will testify ‒ if at all ‒ by deposition, in their home 

districts. There is no way of knowing now how many of these witnesses will need to travel to 

California to testify at trial, and if they do so it will be voluntarily. 

The Pension Fund maintains its records in Maryland and nearly all of the relevant 

documentary evidence is therefore located in the District of Maryland. However, this factor does 

not significantly favor transfer. “With technological advances in document storage and retrieval, 

transporting documents does not generally create a burden.” David, 2007 WL 39400, at *3. In 

addition, the Court gives no weight to the convenience of litigating in Maryland for counsel. See

In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-cv-01804-WHA, 2005 WL 2334362, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) (“Although a few decisions have given weight to the location of 

counsel, most have not saying that it is not to be considered at all or to be given very little 

weight.”). 

E. Interest of Justice 

In evaluating the interest of justice, a court may consider public interest factors such as 

court congestion, local interest in deciding local controversies, conflicts of laws, and burdening 

citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Decker Coal. Co., 805 F.2d at 843. The last two 

factors do not apply here. This ERISA action will be decided under federal law regardless of 

where it is heard, and the parties agree that the case will not be tried to a jury. ECF No. 34 at 12, 

13. 

Court congestion also does not weigh in favor of transfer. Statistics from the Federal 

Judicial Center indicate that during the twelve-month period ending on September 30, 2014, the 

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 7 of 8
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

average caseload per active judge was comparable in the District of Maryland and the Northern 

District of California (368 and 375 cases per active judge, respectively). Supplemental 

Declaration of Caroline Davis (“Davis Decl.”), ECF No. 37 ¶ 4, Exs. C-D. The median time 

interval from filing to disposition of civil cases was 7.0 months in the District of Maryland and 7.9

months in the Northern District of California. ECF No. 37 Ex. E at 1, 3. These statistics do not 

significantly favor either side. 

Defendants argue that transfer to the District of Maryland would be in the interest of 

justice because Maryland has a particular interest in the proper resolution of this dispute. ECF No. 

20 at 10. The Pension Fund is headquartered in Maryland, and the deliberations surrounding the 

challenged amendment occurred exclusively in Maryland. Beck Decl. ¶¶ 27, 32. But California 

also has an interest in the outcome of this suit. As of 2011, more than one fifth of the employers 

making contributions to the plan nationwide were based in California. Sinclair Decl. Ex. 5 ¶¶ 4-5. 

This suggests that something on the order of one-fifth of the plan participants affected may also be 

California residents. Nothing in the record suggests that a comparable number of plan participants 

reside in Maryland. At the hearing, Defendants acknowledged that more participants reside in 

California than any other state. The Court therefore concludes that both California and Maryland 

have an interest in the suit. 

Balancing these factors, the Court determines that Defendants have not met their burden to 

show that the District of Maryland is a more appropriate forum for this action. Although the 

convenience of non-party witnesses weighs gently in favor of transfer, this factor is not sufficient 

to outweigh the Court’s deference to Plaintiff’s choice of this forum. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05596-JST Document 42 Filed 04/09/15 Page 8 of 8