Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03631/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03631-1/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

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03631-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BALGOVIND SHARMA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC. LONG 

TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE PLAN, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03631-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO TRANSFER

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Plaintiff Balgovind Sharma (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Standard Insurance 

Company (“Standard”) and Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. Long Term Disability Insurance Plan 

(“Globalfoundries”), collectively (“Defendants”), alleging a single cause of action for monetary 

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

et seq. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Transfer the case to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of New York. Def. Mot. to Transfer (“Mot.”). See Docket 

Item No. 15. Plaintiff has filed written opposition to the motion. 

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Finding this matter suitable for decision without oral argument, the hearing scheduled for March 

31, 2016 was vacated and the Motion was taken under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b). Having carefully considered the pleadings filed by the parties, the Court hereby DENIES the

Motion for the reasons explained below. 

Case 5:15-cv-03631-EJD Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03631-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), “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” if such a transfer is convenient to the parties and witnesses. 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). 

To determine whether transfer is appropriate, the court first examines whether the action 

could have been brought in the district to which transfer is sought. See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 

758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985) (“In determining whether an action might have been brought in 

a district, the court looks to whether the action initially could have been commenced in that 

district.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). If the proposed district is a viable one, 

the court then goes through an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and 

fairness.” Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622. 

In addition to the convenience considerations enumerated by § 1404(a), the Ninth Circuit 

has identified other fairness factors that should be weighed by the court when considering a 

transfer: “(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). 

“No single factor is dispositive, and a district court has broad discretion to adjudicate 

motions for transfer on a case-by-case basis.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. 

C08-1339CW, 2008 WL 4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. 

Case 5:15-cv-03631-EJD Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03631-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 639 

(9th Cir. 1988)). A transfer may not be appropriate under § 1404(a) if it “would merely shift 

rather than eliminate the inconvenience.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 

F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The party moving for transfer of a case bears the burden of 

demonstrating transfer is appropriate. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 

270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Venue is Proper in Either District 

Pursuant to ERISA’s venue provision, “[w]here an action under this subchapter is brought 

in a district court of the United States, it 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. § 1132(e)(2). For venue purposes, a defendant corporation shall be deemed to reside “in 

any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).

Venue is proper in this district because both Defendants “reside[] or may be found” here.

See § 1132(e)(2). Defendant Standard is an insurance company headquartered in Portland, 

Oregon that conducts business throughout the United States, including in both California and New 

York. Standard administered long term disability benefits provided by Globalfoundries U.S., 

Inc.’s employee benefit plan. Globalfoundries is headquartered in northern California, and 

designated Santa Clara as “the situs of plan administration.” Pl. Opp. to Def. Mot. to Transfer 

(“Opp.”) at 2, 4, Dkt. No. 20; see also Def. Reply at 2, Dkt. No. 22. 

As to whether the action could have been brought in the Southern District of New York, 

the Court observes that both Standard and Globalfoundries conduct business in New York and 

thus “may be found” in the proposed transferee district as well. Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledges

that this case could have appropriately been filed there. Opp. at 3. Thus, the Court finds that 

Defendants met their burden as to this threshold inquiry. 

Case 5:15-cv-03631-EJD Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03631-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

B. Convenience Considerations Do Not Favor Transfer 

Looking next to which forum is more convenient for the parties and relevant witnesses, 

Defendants fail to demonstrate that the Southern District of New York is a more convenient 

forum. With respect to the parties, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff does not reside in California; 

he has lived in New York since 2006,” and Defendants “both operate in New York.” Mot. at 6. 

Based on these facts, Defendants conclude that “the convenience of the parties favors transfer to 

New York.” Id. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. 

First, although Plaintiff is a resident of New York, Plaintiff also chose this forum. The 

relative convenience of a particular district is presumably a consideration in a plaintiff’s decision 

to file suit in that district. See Robertson v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 3:14-CV-01572-HZ, 2014 WL 

7240682, at *4 (D. Or. Dec. 16, 2014) (explaining that the court will assume a plaintiff’s selected

forum is convenient for the plaintiff, given that the plaintiff chose to litigate there and provided 

several legitimate reasons for why the forum was convenient). Thus, it is unconvincing for 

Defendants to advance a convenience argument based primarily on the logic that Plaintiff’s choice 

of forum would be inconvenient to Plaintiff. 

Second, although Defendants both operate in New York, this fact is unpersuasive on the 

question of convenience when both Defendants also operate in California. Moreover, Defendant 

Globalfoundries is headquartered in northern California, and designated this district as “the situs 

of plan administration.” Opp. at 2, 4; see also Def. Reply at 2. Given these facts, Defendants have 

failed to show how they are any more inconvenienced by litigating in this district – where both 

Defendants operate, and where Globalfoundries is based – than they would be by litigating in New 

York. 

Finally, Defendants fail to demonstrate that the convenience of potential witnesses in this 

case would be served by a transfer to New York. As Defendants acknowledge, ERISA actions

such as this one are typically decided on the administrative record. See Mot. at 6. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that any witnesses will be required to testify in this case. 

Case 5:15-cv-03631-EJD Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03631-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

C. The Interests of Justice Would Not Be Served By Transfer 

Turning to whether transfer would best serve the interests of justice, the Court finds that it 

would not. Looking to the Jones fairness factors, the third, fourth, and fifth factors weigh against 

transfer, while the remaining factors are natural. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99.

As to Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the court acknowledges that although this decision is

typically afforded significant weight when considering a motion to transfer, it is “given less 

deference when the plaintiff resides outside of the chosen forum.” Brown v. Abercrombie & Fitch 

Co., No. 4:13–CV–05205 YGR, 2014 WL 715082, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014). Accordingly, 

the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s choice of forum weighs slightly against transfer in this case.

The fourth and fifth factors regarding the parties’ contacts with the forum weigh 

marginally in favor of maintaining the case in this district. On one hand, New York is where 

Plaintiff presently resides, where he received disability benefits, and “where he was denied 

benefits when the Standard determined he was no longer disabled under the terms of the plan.” 

Mot. at 7. However, Plaintiff worked and resided in California when he suffered a head injury on 

a work-related flight to Texas. Opp. at 3. Plaintiff was seen by both California and New York 

medical providers subsequent to his injury, and the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals 

Board made the initial determination that he was “100% disabled.” Opp. at 3; Compl. ¶ 4. 

Moreover, both Defendants operate their business in California, and Defendant Globalfoundries is 

headquartered here. Opp. at 2, 4. 

The remaining factors are neutral. The first factor is neutral because the location where 

the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed applies to both forums. Plaintiff has 

worked in both California and New York, received medical treatment in both California and New 

York, and engaged in proceedings related to his benefits claims in both California and New York. 

See Mot. at 7; Opp. at 1-2, 3, 4. The second factor is also neutral because ERISA is a federal 

statute, and therefore a district court in either state would be equally familiar with the governing 

law. The sixth factor is neutral because the differences in the costs of litigation would likely be 

Case 5:15-cv-03631-EJD Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03631-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

comparable in either district. And finally, the seventh and eighth factors are neutral because they 

are immaterial to this case. As previously noted, an ERISA action is likely to be decided on the 

administrative record. Consequently, the ability to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses and

the relative ease of access to other evidence is likely irrelevant. 

In sum, Defendants fail to demonstrate that transferring this case to New York would 

better serve the interests of justice. To the extent that fairness considerations favor either forum, 

the relevant factors weigh in favor of maintaining the case in Plaintiff’s chosen district.

III. CONCLUSION

On balance, the convenience and fairness considerations applicable to an analysis under 

§ 1404(a) weigh against transferring this action to the Southern District of New York. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03631-EJD Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 6 of 6