Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02771/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02771-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1109 Breach of Fiduciary Duties

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE COUVRETTE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2771-WQHJMA

vs. ORDER

EDWARD COUVRETTE; E.F.

COUVRETTE COMPANY, INC.;

VALERIE GOAD; E.F. COUVRETTE

COMPANY, INC. 401(K)

RETIREMENT PLAN; PRINCIPAL

FINANCIAL GROUP; and DOES 1-

10,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss or to Transfer Venue to

Western District of Virginia filed by Defendants Edward F. Couvrette, E.F. Couvrette

Company, Inc. (“EFCC”), EFCC 401(k) Retirement Plan, and Valerie Goad. (ECF No.

19). 

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff Joanne Couvrette initiated this action with a

Complaint against Defendants Edward F. Couvrette, EFCC, EFCC 401(k) Retirement

Plan, Valerie Goad, Principal Financial Group, and Does 1-10. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants failed to follow proper procedures and make payments to

Plaintiff pursuant to a San Diego Superior Court Qualified Domestic Relations Order

issued against Defendant Edward Couvrette, the sole owner and shareholder of EFCC. 

- 1 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff alleges that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order mandates payments of

delinquent spousal support to Plaintiff from the EFCC 401(k) Retirement Plan. Plaintiff

alleges three claims for breach of fiduciary duties and recovery of benefits pursuant to

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1001,

et seq.), and one claim for negligence.

On January 23, 2013, Defendants Edward F. Couvrette, EFCC, EFCC 401(k)

Retirement Plan, and Valerie Goad (“Defendants”) filed the Motion to Dismiss or to

Transfer Venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). (ECF No. 19).1

On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 22).

VENUE

Defendants move to dismiss this action for improper venue pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) on the grounds that “the claims were not initiated in

accordance with ERISA Section 1132(e)(2).” (ECF No. 19-1 at 2).

When venue in a particular district is improper, the court “shall dismiss, or if it

be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it

could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Plaintiff brings her claims under

ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Pursuant to the ERISA venue provision, an action

may be filed “in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place,

or where a Defendant resides or may be found.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). A Defendant

is “found” in any district where personal jurisdiction can be properly asserted. Varsic

v. U.S. Dist. Court for Centr. Dist. of Cal., 607 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1979).

In considering personal jurisdiction in the context of an ERISA action, the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that, where a defendant’s activities in the

forum are unrelated to the cause of action, the defendant is “found” within a forum

under section 1132(e)(2) if defendant’s activities within the forum are “substantial” or

1

On January 7, 2013, Defendant Principal Financial Group filed an answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 16). On February 15, 2013, Defendant Principal Financial Group filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or to Transfer Venue. (ECF No. 21).

- 2 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 2 of 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

“continuous and systematic.” Varsic, 607 F.2d at 249 (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys.

Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977)). Factors to consider in this

analysis include “whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business

within the state, serves the state’s markets, designates an agent for service of process,

holds a licence, or is incorporated there.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc., v. Augusta Nat’l,

Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). In analyzing ERISA’s legislative history, the

Ninth Circuit found that Congress “clearly struck the balance in favor of liberal venue.” 

Varsic, 607 F.2d at 248.

Defendants contend that venue is improper under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) on the

following grounds:

The plan in question is administered in Salem, Virginia. Any alleged breach took place there and that is where the defendant plan administrator and employees of the corporate defendant reside. This Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant Edward Couvrette and Valerie Goad is

tenuous because they are not present in this State, ... committed no act complained of in this State, and committed no acts outside of the State of

Virginia by agent or otherwise, allegedly causing harm within this State, or by engaging in activities in this State which would otherwise confer

jurisdiction.

(ECF No. 19-1 at 4). 

Plaintiff contends that venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) on the

grounds that Defendant EFCC “resides” and “may be found” in the Southern District

of California. Plaintiff asserts that EFCC is a California corporation and maintains a

branch office in Santee, California. Plaintiff also contends that venue is proper on the

grounds that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties pursuant to the Qualified

Domestic Relations Order issued in the Southern District of California.

Defendants submit the declaration of their counsel, Harry W. Brown, who states

that Defendant EFCC maintains a branch office in Santee, California, within the

Southern District of California. Brown states that the Defendant EFCC 401(k)

Retirement Plan “covers and includes certain employees who work at the branch office

in Santee, California.” (ECF No. 19-3 at 3). 

 The Court finds that the evidence of an EFCC branch office in Santee, California

- 3 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 3 of 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

is sufficient to establish that Defendants EFCC and EFCC 401(k) Retirement Plan

engage in “substantial” and “continuous and systematic” business activities within the

Southern District of California. Varsic, 607 F.2d at 249. Accordingly, the Court

concludes that Defendants EFCC and EFCC 401(k) Retirement Plan “may be found”

in the Southern District of California pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). See Varsic,

607 F.2d at 248-49 (a defendant is “found” under section 1132(e)(2) in any district

where personal jurisdiction can be properly asserted, i.e. where defendant’s activities

are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic”). The motion to dismiss for improper

venue is denied. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2).

TRANSFER

Defendants also move for transfer of this action to the Western District of

Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (ECF No. 19-1 at 5).

Section 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the convenience of 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 § 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 citations and quotation

omitted). The statute requires a court to consider the convenience of the parties and

witnesses and the interests of justice. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d

495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). 

To undertake this analysis of “convenience” and the “interests of justice,” a

district court weighs “multiple factors,” including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the

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

of witnesses, the ease of access to sources of proof, the State that is most familiar with

the governing law, the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, and the

relevant public policy. Id. at 498-99. The party moving for a transfer pursuant to §

1404(a) bears the burden of showing that another forum is more convenient and serves

- 4 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 4 of 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

the interest of justice. See id. at 499. “The defendant must make a strong showing of

inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co.

v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). “Rather than relying

on vague generalizations of inconvenience, the moving party must demonstrate, through

affidavits or declarations containing admissible evidence, who the key witnesses will

be and what their testimony will generally include.” Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc.,

58 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Commodity Futures Trading

Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)).

Defendants contend that this action could have been brought in the Western

District of Virginia. Defendants contend that transfer to the Western District of

Virginia would promote the interests of justice because “Plaintiff’s forum has no

particular interest in the subject matter of the litigation as there is no localized

controversy and no issue or contacts unique to California are alleged or exist.” (ECF

No. 19-1 at 7). Defendants contend that transfer would promote the convenience of the

parties and witnesses because “all of the likely witnesses reside in Roanoke, Virginia

or do business there,” “the cost [of] litigation in California is expected to be

significant,” and the parties could “invoke the trial court’s subpoena power to command

the presen[ce] of key fact-based witnesses.” Id. at 8.

Plaintiff contends that her choice of venue “is entitled to substantial deference

because Plaintiff’s claims are made under ERISA and Plaintiff resides in the Southern

District of California.” (ECF No. 22 at 11). Plaintiff contends that “the convenience

of Defendants’ witnesses is entitled to little weight because the witnesses are employees

of the party seeking transfer, and EFCC will be able to compel their testimony at trial.” 

Id. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants fail to specifically identify any third party

witnesses or testimony that would be adversely affected by a California venue. Id. at

12. Plaintiff contends that California has a “significant interest in protecting Plaintiff’s

rights” because “Plaintiff is a resident of California, the amount due to Plaintiff stems

from a Superior Court of California order, EFCC maintains an office in Santee,

- 5 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 5 of 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

California, and the Plan itself covers employees who work out of the Santee office.” 

Id. at 13-14.

Brown identifies in his declaration Defendants and Defendant EFCC’s employees

as the “essential” and “likely” witnesses in this case, and states that the Western District

of Virginia would be a more convenient venue for these witnesses. Brown states that

“compelling [the witnesses’] attendance at deposition or at trial” is possible only in the

Western District of Virginia. (ECF No. 19-3 at 3). Brown states that, due to the

distance between Defendants’ witnesses and the Southern District of California, “live

testimony of these witnesses may not be obtainable unless this action is transferred ...;

even if it were obtainable in this district, the cost and expense associated with producing

all the witnesses at trial within this district is prohibitive and unnecessarily expensive

in comparison to the cost associated with producing the witnesses and related

documents in the Western District of Virginia.” Id. at 4. Brown states that “Joanne

Couvrette is already engaged in litigation in Virginia. She is a party litigant and has an

interest in a case currently pending and ongoing in New Castle, Virginia.” Id. at 5.

Plaintiff submits a November 4, 2011 Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued

by a San Diego Superior Court judge, which found that Defendant Edward Couvrette

owed $229,548.38 to Plaintiff for delinquent spousal support and accrued interest. See

ECF No. 22-1. In her declaration in opposition to the motion to transfer venue, Plaintiff

states that she “brought this case to seek enforcement of the Qualified Domestic

Relations Order[, which] assigns to [Plaintiff] retirement benefits in the E.F. Couvrette

Company, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan ... based on delinquent support....” (ECF No.

22-2 at 2). Plaintiff states that, “[a]t this point in the litigation, the only witnesses that

I anticipate will be deposed are Edward Couvrette, Valerie Goad, and the person most

knowledgeable at Principal Life Insurance Company.” Id. Plaintiff states that she

“do[es] not regularly travel to Virginia for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court Case” in which she is involved, and has not traveled to Virginia in the past 13

years. Id. Plaintiff states that “Mr. [Edward] Couvrette, on the other hand, regularly

- 6 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 6 of 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

travels to California for business and personal reasons,” such as visiting with his family

and his girlfriend’s family. Id.

Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to deference. See Decker Coal Co., 805

F.2d at 843. Plaintiff resides in the Southern District of California and the Qualified

Domestic Relations Order underlying this action was issued in the Southern District of

California. California has an interest in providing a forum for its injured citizens to

obtain meaningful redress, particularly when, as here, the injury is alleged to have been

caused by Defendant’s noncompliance with a California state court order. Defendants

have made no showing that any relevant public policy favors transfer or that Virginia

is more familiar than California with the governing law. The Court finds that the

motion to transfer “rel[ies] on vague generalizations of inconvenience” to Virginiabased witnesses and fails to “demonstrate ... what [those witnesses’] testimony will

generally include.” Cochran, 58 F. Supp. 2d at 1119 (citing Commodity Futures

Trading Comm’n, 611 F.2d at 279). Any difficulty Defendants may face in compelling

their own employees to testify in California is not a factor that weighs heavily in favor

of transfer. See STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551, 1556 (N.D. Cal. 1988)

(“[D]efendant’s claim that defense witnesses could not be expected to appear at trial

must be discounted since at least four of the six witnesses are defendant’s employees

whom defendant can compel to testify.”) (citing Galonis v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 498 F.

Supp. 789, 793 (D. N.H. 1980) (explaining that inconvenience to a party’s witnesses

should be discounted when those witnesses are employees who can be compelled to

testify)). The Court does not find that Defendants have made “a strong showing of

inconvenience” pursuant to the relevant § 1404 factors “to warrant upsetting the

plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. The motion to transfer

pursuant to § 1404(a) is denied.

//

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss or to Transfer Venue to

- 7 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 7 of 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

Western District of Virginia (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

DATED: June 13, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 8 - 12cv2771-WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02771-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 06/13/13 Page 8 of 8