Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02312/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior United States District Judge for the *

District of New Jersey, sitting by designation

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-2312

 

SINGLE EMPLOYER WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN TRUST,

 Appellant

v.

DATALINK ELECTRONICS, INC; 

YOSSI LEV; ANNA LEV; DAVID R. NESTE; 

GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

SIMON SINGER; JEFFREY L. DAVIDSON

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

D.C. Civil Action No. 09-cv-00377

(Honorable Juan R. Sanchez)

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 23, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges,

and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge *

(Opinion filed: March 24, 2010)

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

Case: 09-2312 Document: 003110071872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
2

RODRIGUEZ, Senior District Judge 

This is an appeal from an Order granting a motion to transfer the action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. In doing so, the District Court expressly overrode a forum selection clause

contained in a contract between the parties, invoking Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,

487 U.S. 22 (1988), to conclude the forum selection clause was relevant but not

determinative to the forum non conveniens analysis. Appellant argues that the District

Court erred in failing to enforce the forum selection clause and in transferring the case.

I.

Appellant Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan Trust by Penn-Mont Benefit

Services, Inc., Plan Administrator (“Trust”) filed the Complaint seeking declaratory relief

against Datalink Electronics, Inc., Yossi Lev, Anna Lev, David R. Neste, General

American Life Insurance Company, Simon Singer, and Jeffrey L. Davidson, regarding

distribution of certain life insurance policies sought by the Defendants which the Trust

contends was neither provided for by the Plan documents nor legal. The Complaint also

sought breach of contract damages under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1103, 1132, and 1144,

and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 419, and damages for State claims. 

The Trust is a multiple employer welfare benefit plan trust administered in

Pennsylvania to fund death benefits to employers throughout the United States. Datalink

is one of those employers, co-owned by employees Yossi and Anna Lev; all three are

Case: 09-2312 Document: 003110071872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
3

citizens of California. Neste and Singer are California insurance agents who received

commissions from the sale of Pennsylvania life insurance policies purchased by the Trust

to insure participating Datalink employees. General American issued the Lev life

insurance policies purchased by the Trust. Davidson is a California attorney who

represented Singer.

The Trust contends that it purchases life insurance policies on the lives of

participating employees to reinsure the plan’s risks relating to payment of benefits and

assure its solvency to pay benefits; the Trust is the named owner and beneficiary of death

benefit proceeds from those policies. According to the Complaint, Datalink sought to

terminate the Plan, drafting its own termination documents which were not accepted by

the Plan Administrator. No distributions have been paid.

II.

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction based upon both diversity of

citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the pleading of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from all final decisions of the district courts

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It is well-settled, however, that an order granting a motion

to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is interlocutory in character and not

immediately appealable under section 1291. In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 300 F.3d

368, 378 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

Case: 09-2312 Document: 003110071872 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
4

The original motion was styled as one to dismiss for lack of venue and jurisdiction

or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the Central District of California pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which provides that where venue is laid in the wrong district, the

district 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,” or, in the alternative, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which 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.” 

The District Court analyzed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and ordered the

case transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California,

thereby granting Defendants’ motion. “[O]rders granting or denying motions to transfer

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) are not immediately appealable under

28 U.S.C. § 1291 as collaterally final orders. It is irrelevant for these purposes whether

the motion to transfer is based on a forum selection clause, the convenience of witnesses,

or other factors.” Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 772-73 (3d Cir. 1984). See

also McCreary Tire & Rubber Co. v. CEAT S.p.A., 501 F.2d 1032 (3d Cir. 1974) (“An

order transferring an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or refusing to make such a

transfer is interlocutory and unappealable under § 1291.”).

Case: 09-2312 Document: 003110071872 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
5

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal because we do not have appellate jurisdiction

over the Order issued by the District Court transferring venue in this case to the Central

District of California.

Case: 09-2312 Document: 003110071872 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/24/2010