Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01960/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01960-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

1

17-CV-1960-CAB-BLM

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

KRISTI HASKINS, LAURA SCULLY, 

AND DONALD J. JANAK, individually 

and as representatives of a class of 

similarly situated persons in the General 

Electric Retirement Savings Plan and the 

General Electric Savings and Security 

Program,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;

GENERAL ELECTRIC RETIREMENT 

SAVINGS PLAN TRUSTEES,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1960-CAB-BLM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER CASE TO THE 

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Doc. No. 24]

On September 26, 2017, Plaintiffsfiled this putative class action under the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties 

and mismanagement of Defendant General Electric Company’s 401(k) plan. Within the 

next two months, three virtually identical putative class actions were filed in the District of 

Massachusetts, where GE is headquartered. On December 12, 2017, Judge Denise Casper

entered an order granting a stipulation by the parties in the three Massachusetts cases to 

consolidate them into one action captioned In re GE ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:17-CV12123-DJC (the “Consolidated Action”). On January 12, 2018, a consolidated amended 

complaint was filed in the Consolidated Action.

Meanwhile, Defendants in the instant case move to transfer venue to Massachusetts, 

while the named Plaintiffs here have moved to intervene in the Consolidated Action 

seeking to have the Consolidated Action transferred to this district or stayed. All parties 

Case 3:17-cv-01960-CAB-BLM Document 27 Filed 02/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-1960-CAB-BLM

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

to the Consolidated Action oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, and Plaintiffs oppose Defendants 

motion to transfer in this case. Defendants’ motion to transfer venue in this case is fully 

briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. The motion 

is granted.

 “For 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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a). The factors relevant to the determination of whether transfer is appropriate under 

Section 1404(a) include, without limitation:

(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). All of these factors 

are either neutral or favor transfer to Massachusetts. The alleged wrongdoing occurred 

primarily in Massachusetts or Connecticut. Because federal law applies, this factor is 

neutral. Because this dispute involves a putative nationwide class, the fact that three of the 

individual members of the class prefer to litigate here does not warrant much weight 

considering that the vast majority of the class does not reside here, and a majority of the 

individuals seeking to be named class members prefer to litigate this dispute in 

Massachusetts. The only contact relating to this forum is that two of the named plaintiffs 

in this case and some of the putative class reside here. Meanwhile, many of the defendants 

and relevant witnesses as well as many of the putative class members reside in or near 

Massachusetts. Thus, while some of the operative facts may have occurred in this district,

significantly more of the operative facts occurred and originated in or near Massachusetts. 

Further, the costs of litigating and the availability of compulsory process here versus 

Massachusetts are at best neutral and more likely favor Massachusetts considering that 

Case 3:17-cv-01960-CAB-BLM Document 27 Filed 02/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-1960-CAB-BLM

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

more witnesses reside there. Likewise, the ease of access to sources of proof is at best 

neutral but likely favors Massachusetts considering that GE is headquartered there.

Plaintiffs quibble with Defendants’ support for their arguments that the more 

appropriate venue for this case is Massachusetts, but Plaintiffs provide little support for the 

idea that San Diego would be a better or even equal venue. Ultimately, Plaintiffs only 

argument for denying Defendant motion to transfer venue is that Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit 

before the lawsuits that were joined into the Consolidated Action. While this first-to-file 

principle may justify deference to the forum of the first filed case when a plaintiff and 

defendant each file what is effectively the same lawsuit in different forums, the principle 

has little relevance here. All four lawsuits were filed on behalf of what is essentially the 

same plaintiff class. That three members of the class filed first here warrants little 

deference when other members of the same class, as well as Defendants, prefer to litigate 

this dispute in Massachusetts. Indeed, considering the number of individuals interested in 

representing the class in Massachusetts, the Court is not persuaded how the named 

plaintiffs here will suffer any burden.

1

 Accordingly, the fact that this lawsuit was filed first 

does not overcome the many reasons why Massachusetts is the more appropriate forum.

In sum, the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, the interests 

of justice, and judicial efficiency all overwhelmingly favor litigating this dispute between 

a nationwide class and Defendants in Massachusetts instead of San Diego. Therefore,

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is GRANTED, and this case is TRANSFERRED

to the District of Massachusetts. It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2018

 

1 Moreover, the existence of other willing class members who could represent the class in Massachusetts 

ostensibly renders Plaintiffs’ participation superfluous.

Case 3:17-cv-01960-CAB-BLM Document 27 Filed 02/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3