Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 29:1002 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEVIN FINLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NORTHERN CA CARPENTERS TRUST 

FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1132-GEB-EFB PS 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

AND CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 

Defendants Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California (“Pension Fund”), 

erroneously named as Northern CA Carpenters Trust Fund Board of Trustees, Mike Knab, Bob 

Alvarado, Bill Feyling, Charlene Martinez, Rigo LaGuardia, and Jay Streets have moved to 

dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 

12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 29, 30. The motions are currently set for hearing on December 18, 2013. 

The first amended complaint purports to state a claim under the Employment Retirement 

Income Security Act (“ERISA”). See generally ECF No. 14. Defendants Pension Fund, 

Alvarado, Feyling, Knab, and Martinez argue that the Eastern District of California is not the 

proper forum for this action. ECF No. 30 at 4-5. ERISA’s venue provision provides that an 

action against a pension fund “may be brought 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. 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-GEB-EFB Document 38 Filed 12/17/13 Page 1 of 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 

2

§ 1132(e)(2) (emphasis added). For purposes of this provision, a defendant is “found” in any 

district where personal jurisdiction may be properly asserted. Varsic v. U.S. Dist. Court for 

Centr. Dist. Of Cal., 607 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, the venue analysis is akin to a 

minimum contacts analysis for in personam jurisdiction. In determining whether a defendant has 

sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to subject him to personal jurisdiction, a court 

utilizes the following approach: 

(1) The nonresident must do some act or consummate some 

transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he 

purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities 

in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its 

laws. (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or results from 

the defendant’s forum-related activities. (3) Exercise of jurisdiction 

must be reasonable. 

Varsic, 607 F.2d at 249 (citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs. Inc., 557 F.2d 

1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

Defendants argue that this court is not a proper venue because the Pension Fund is 

administered in the Northern District of California; at the time of this action defendants were 

located in the Northern District; the plan at issue was administered in the Northern District; the 

Pension Fund resides in the Northern District; contributions are paid to the Pension Fund in the 

Northern District; and plaintiff earned his last pension credits performing work in the Northern 

District. ECF No. 30 at 5. Defendants, however, have not specifically addressed whether they 

have sufficient minimum contacts with the Eastern District of California to satisfy a personal 

jurisdiction test. Without such information, the court is unable to determine whether defendants 

may be “found” in the Eastern District of California for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). 

Accordingly, the parties shall file supplemental briefs specifically addressing defendants’ 

contacts with the Eastern District of California and whether any such contacts, although perhaps 

minimal, are sufficient to satisfy the “minimum contacts” test for whether defendants can be 

“found” in this district for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). 

Furthermore, it is not entirely clear whether plaintiff believes that this action should be 

transferred to the Northern District of California. His brief in opposition to defendants’ motions 

to dismiss states that he agrees that if this matter goes to trial, it should be held in the Northern 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-GEB-EFB Document 38 Filed 12/17/13 Page 2 of 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 

3

District of California. ECF No. 31 at 4. He then proceeds to request that the court deny 

defendants’ motion to transfer the matter to the Northern District of California so that he can 

attempt to settle the case in this district. Id. Plaintiff’s inconsistent positions require clarification. 

While the parties are free to request an early settlement conference in whichever district this 

ultimately proceeds, the case will not proceed with pretrial litigation in one district only to be 

transferred to the other district for trial. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action in the 

Northern District of California, he must so state in his response to defendants’ supplemental brief. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. On or before December 31, 2013, defendants shall file a supplemental brief addressing 

whether they can be “found” in the Eastern District of California for purposes of 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(e)(2). 

2. Plaintiff shall file a response to defendants’ brief no later than January 8, 2014. 

Plaintiff shall indicate in his response whether he consents to this matter being transferred to the 

Northern District of California. 

3. The December 18, 2013 hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 29, 30) 

is continued to January 15, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 

Dated: December 17, 2013. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-GEB-EFB Document 38 Filed 12/17/13 Page 3 of 3