1317191_1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JACLYN SANTOMENNO, KAREN 

POLEY, and BARBARA POLEY, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRANSAMERICA LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

TRANSAMERICA INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, and 

TRANSAMERICA ASSET 

MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-736 (ES) (CLW)

Motion Returnable: Sept. 19, 2011

Oral Argument Requested

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

Thomas R. Curtin

George C. Jones

GRAHAM CURTIN

A Professional Association

4 Headquarters Plaza, P.O. Box 1991 

Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1991 

(973) 292-1700

Robert N. Eccles (pro hac vice)

Gary S. Tell (pro hac vice) 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

1625 Eye Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006-4001

(202) 383-5300

Attorneys for Defendants 

Transamerica Life Insurance Company, 

Transamerica Investment Management, LLC 

and Transamerica Asset Management, Inc.

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 2965
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

1317191_1

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

II. ARGUMENT...............................................................................................3

A. Plaintiffs Are Nominal Plaintiffs Whose Choice of Forum 

Deserves No Deference......................................................................4

B. ERISA’s Venue Provision Does Not Mandate Plaintiffs’ Choice 

of Forum............................................................................................6

C. The Convenience of the Witnesses Favors Transfer...........................8

D. The Convenience of the Parties Favors Transfer..............................11

E. Los Angeles Is The Center of Gravity For This Matter ....................12

III. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................14

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2966
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

ii

1317191_1

CASES

Bd. of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers Nat’l Fund v. Baylor Heating & Air 

Conditioning, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1253 (E.D. Va. 1988) .......................................7

David v. Alphin,

No. 06-4763 (WHA), 2007 WL 39400 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007)......................7, 8

Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. RAM Lodging, LLC,

No. 09-2275 (SDW), 2010 WL 1540926 (D.N.J. April 14, 2010)......................12

Job Haines Home for the Aged v. Young,

936 F. Supp. 223 (D.N.J. 1996)...........................................................................5

Johnson v. Nextel Commc’ns , Inc.,

No. 06-CV-5547 (DMC), 2007 WL 2814649 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2007).................6

Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.,

330 U.S. 518 (1947) ............................................................................................5

NPR, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 

No. CIV 00-0242 (WGB), 2001 WL 294077 (D.N.J. March 28, 2001) .......12, 14

In re Consolidated Parlodel Litig.,

22 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 1998) .....................................................................11

Peikin v. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.,

576 F. Supp. 2d 654 (D.N.J. 2008) ....................................................................13

Renfro v. Unisys Corp.,

--- F.3d ----, No. 10-2447, 2011 WL 3630121 (3d Cir. Aug. 19, 2011)................1

Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell, Inc.,

817 F. Supp. 473 (D.N.J. 1993).........................................................................12

Thorlabs, Inc. v. Townsend Commc’ns , LLC,

No. 03-4550 (JCL), 2004 WL 1630488 (D.N.J. June 30, 2004).........................12

Winnett v. Caterpillar Inc.,

No. 3:06-CV-00235, 2006 WL 1722434 (M.D. Tenn. June 20, 2006).................7

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 2967
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Page

iii

1317191_1

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ..........................................................................................3, 14

29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), ERISA § 502(e)(2)........................................................3, 7

29 U.S.C. § 1144(d), ERISA § 514(d).....................................................................7

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(b)(6) ..................................................................................9

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 2968
1317191_1

I. INTRODUCTION.

On July 29, 2011, Defendants filed their motion to transfer venue 

simultaneously with their motions to dismiss.1 (ECF Nos. 33, 34, 35.) Plaintiffs 

filed a single opposition to both motions on August 19, 2011. (ECF No. 41.) On 

the same day, the Third Circuit issued its decision in Renfro v. Unisys Corp., ---

F.3d ----, No. 10-2447, 2011 WL 3630121 (3d Cir. Aug. 19, 2011), affirming the 

dismissal of claims similar to those asserted here for alleged breaches of fiduciary 

duty under ERISA. On August 22, 2011, Plaintiffs requested that they be allowed 

to revise and re-file their opposition to the motions to dismiss on September 1, 

2011 “to address the Third Circuit’s opinion and its impact on several of their 

arguments.” (ECF No. 42.) In view of the Renfro decision and in the interest of 

judicial economy, Defendants request that the Court exercise its discretion to 

decide the motions to dismiss first.

Assuming the Court reaches the venue issue, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition 

to Defendants’ Motion for Transfer of Venue (“Opp.”) confirms that this action 

belongs in Los Angeles. The allegations in the Complaint are not focused on the 

named Plaintiffs, their employers or their retirement plans. Rather, the Complaint 

 

1 Defendants are Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“TLIC”) and two 

affiliates, Transamerica Investment Management (“TIM”) and Transamerica Asset 

Management (“TAM”). TLIC’s motion to dismiss was briefed and filed separately 

from the motion filed collectively by TIM and TAM.

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 2969
2

1317191_1

targets TLIC’s retirement plan business, which is centered in Los Angeles. The 

Complaint challenges TLIC’s investment option platforms and the associated fees 

offered to retirement plans across the country. TLIC makes all decisions 

concerning these investment options and associated fees in its retirement plan 

products in Los Angeles and the vast majority of the individuals with knowledge of 

those products are located there.

Plaintiffs do not contest that the Central District of California is a proper 

venue. Their sole argument is that it would be less convenient. Unable to 

challenge the facts set forth in Defendants’ moving papers and Memorandum in 

Support of Motion to Transfer Venue (“Memo.”), Plaintiffs rely on flawed legal 

reasoning and illusory “crucial non-party witnesses” to seek to prevent transfer of 

this case to the Central District of California. For multiple reasons, as discussed 

below, Plaintiffs’ efforts are unavailing.

First, Plaintiffs’ “home forum” is not “paramount.” The named Plaintiffs 

bring this action on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all 401(k) retirement 

plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(“ERISA”) and their participants and beneficiaries. In that capacity, the named 

Plaintiffs are nominal parties whose choice of forum is not entitled to deference.

Second, it is not true that “the ERISA ‘special venue’ provision . . . enhances 

the weight of Plaintiffs’ already-paramount preference”. (Opp. at 1.) Nowhere 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 2970
3

1317191_1

does ERISA § 502(e)(2) require that an action be brought only where the plaintiff

resides. Indeed, a plaintiff’s residence, by itself, is not expressly designated as an 

appropriate venue, and nothing in ERISA precludes a transfer to a more convenient 

forum.

Third, the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the Court’s 

connection to the operative facts of the lawsuit -- the “center of gravity” of this 

matter -- all weigh decisively in favor of transfer. As Defendants established in 

their moving papers, every act underlying the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Complaint 

was centered in Los Angeles, 19 of the 23 current employees with relevant 

knowledge are located in Los Angeles, and 3 of the 4 relevant former employees 

are in the Los Angeles area. (Memo. at 16-17; Declaration of Darcy Hatton 

(“Hatton Decl.”) (ECF No. 33-2).) None are in New Jersey. Although Plaintiffs

argue that there are “crucial non-party witnesses” elsewhere, they give no 

suggestion of what testimony these individuals would provide, much less why they 

are crucial.

Since the Central District of California is a more appropriate forum, the 

motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should be granted.

II. ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenges how TLIC designs and prices investment 

products for its retirement plan business, which is based in California. Plaintiffs do 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 2971
4

1317191_1

not dispute that this case could have been brought in California. During the period 

covered in the complaint, two of the three defendants were located in Los 

Angeles.2 Plaintiffs’ claims arose principally in Los Angeles. The most likely 

witnesses -- those responsible for assembling, marketing and administering TLIC’s 

retirement products, including a broad range of available investment options -- are 

located in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs largely ignore these facts in their opposition 

brief. Instead, their primary arguments against transferring the case to the Central 

District of California rest on mistaken assertions that their choice of forum is 

“paramount” (Opp. at 2) and that ERISA’s “special venue” section requires greater 

deference to their venue selection. (Opp at 2-3). Plaintiffs also protest that 

litigating in a California court would impose greater burdens on them and that nonparty witnesses may be beyond the court’s subpoena power. These arguments 

crumble upon closer inspection.

A. Plaintiffs Are Nominal Plaintiffs Whose Choice of Forum

Deserves No Deference.

Plaintiffs’ position that their choice of forum “should not be lightly 

disturbed” (Opp. at 8) is unsupportable. A plaintiff’s selection of a forum is not 

entitled to any particular deference where the plaintiff brings the action on behalf 

 

2

TLIC’s retirement plan business is centered in Los Angeles, with 342 

employees, including the vast majority of that business’ managers and executives. 

(Memo. at 6.) Before closing its operations on June 30, 2011, TIM was 

headquartered in Los Angeles and most of its former employees were located 

there. (Id.) TAM is based in Florida. (Id.) 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 2972
5

1317191_1

of a nationwide class. Job Haines Home for the Aged v. Young, 936 F. Supp. 223, 

230-31 and n.8 (D.N.J. 1996). This principle acknowledges that parties who bring 

an action on behalf of a class may be nominal plaintiffs without the specific 

personal knowledge “of the underlying actions making it ‘requisite or at least 

expedient for him personally to be present at the trial.’” Job Haines, 936 F. Supp. 

at 230 n.8 quoting Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947). 

The named Plaintiffs here fit that description exactly. Their brief asserts that 

“[r]elevant evidence will come from [the named] Plaintiffs and their Plan sponsors, 

all of which are located in New Jersey.” (Opp. at 4.) But neither the brief nor the 

supporting declaration provides any inkling of what that evidence will be. Nor is 

there any reason to think that the named Plaintiffs or their Plan sponsors have any 

knowledge about TLIC’s retirement plan product development or construction of 

investment platforms, or whether TLIC charged excessive fees and violated duties 

under ERISA related to those products or investment platforms, allegations that are 

fundamental to the Complaint. Their choice of forum therefore warrants no 

deference.

Moreover, the named Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of a nationwide 

class of all ERISA defined contribution plans, along with their participants and 

beneficiaries, that hold group annuity contracts issued or sold by TLIC in all 50 

states, except New York. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 24, 25, 54, 55, 62.) Indeed, TLIC 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 2973
6

1317191_1

issued group annuity contracts for 7,763 active retirement plans nationwide, as 

well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Hatton Decl. ¶ 8.) The state with 

the greatest number of these plans is California, where TLIC services 1,364 ERISA 

plans, or about 17.5 percent of its retirement plan business. By comparison, TLIC 

services 469 plans in New Jersey, or roughly 6 percent of its retirement plan 

business.

The fact that the named Plaintiffs reside in New Jersey may be a 

consideration, but far from “paramount” in this Court’s decision of the most 

appropriate venue. Since the vast majority of the putative class resides outside of 

New Jersey, with the largest concentration located in California, the nominal 

Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be discounted even further. See Johnson v. 

Nextel Commc’ns , Inc., No. 06-CV-5547 (DMC), 2007 WL 2814649, at *4 

(D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2007) (noting that in a putative class action “where there are 

many potential plaintiffs scattered across the country, the choice of this plaintiff 

deserves less weight”). 

B. ERISA’s Venue Provision Does Not Mandate Plaintiffs’ 

Choice of Forum.

Plaintiffs argue that ERISA’s “‘special venue’ provision” entitles their 

choice of forum “even greater deference.” (Opp. at 2.) They are mistaken. 

ERISA § 502(e)(2) provides that venue is appropriate in three locations: 1) where 

the plan is administered, 2) where the breach took place, or 3) where a defendant

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 2974
7

1317191_1

resides or may be found. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Nothing in that section ties

venue to a plaintiff’s place of residence. And nothing in ERISA trumps the federal 

law governing transfer of venue. Indeed, with limited exceptions not relevant here, 

ERISA does not “alter, amend, modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede any law of 

the United States”. ERISA § 514(d), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(d). 

“[C]ontrary to [P]laintiffs’ suggestion here, ERISA's special venue 

provisions do not operate to preclude transfer” to a more convenient forum. See 

Bd. of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers Nat’l Fund v. Baylor Heating & Air 

Conditioning, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1253, 1257 n.13 (E.D. Va. 1988). That case, and 

others cited by Plaintiffs, confirm that courts have engaged in a robust analysis of 

whether a transfer of venue would benefit “the convenience of parties and 

witnesses, in the interest of justice”, even where plaintiffs’ choice of forum in an 

ERISA action is their home district. See e.g., David v. Alphin, No. 06-4763 

(WHA), 2007 WL 39400, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007) (granting motion to 

transfer ERISA action where majority of defendants resided in transferee forum). 

Not surprisingly, where courts have declined to transfer venue, the convenience of 

witnesses or interest of justice factors were neutral or not heavily in favor of either 

forum. See Winnett v. Caterpillar Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00235, 2006 WL 1722434, at 

*5 (M.D. Tenn. June 20, 2006); Bd of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers, 702 F. Supp. 

at 1260.

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 2975
8

1317191_1

C. The Convenience of the Witnesses Favors Transfer.

Even if the named Plaintiffs’ choice of forum were to be afforded any 

deference, “it cannot outweigh the convenience factor.” See David, 2007 WL 

39400, at *5. In David, another case on which Plaintiffs rely, a California district 

court transferred venue of an ERISA action to North Carolina. Although the 

named plaintiff in that case was a California resident, the convenience of the 

parties and witnesses and the interest of justice supported transfer. 2007 WL 

39400, at *5. In addition, 18 of the 34 individual defendants lived in North

Carolina, a fact which the court found convincing. Id. 

As explained in Defendants’ moving papers, 19 of the 23 current TLIC 

employees with knowledge of the facts underlying the Complaint -- i.e., how TLIC 

designed, marketed and managed its investment product platforms for retirement 

plans -- are located in Los Angeles. (Memo. at 6-12, 16.) Each of these 

individuals was specifically identified by name, and, as listed below, by the

department in which he or she works:

 Current and former members of the Investment Committee, which is 

responsible for designing the product platforms, and including the 

investment options to be offered to plan sponsors and plans, and the 

investment management and administrative fees associated with such 

investment options (Memo. at 8-9; Hatton Decl., ¶ 21; Declaration of Mark 

A. Fisher in support of Opp. (“Fisher Decl.”), (ECF No. 40-1) Ex. A, Tr. 

115:11-16),

 Specific individuals within the Retirement Product Pricing Department, 

which is responsible for general pricing guidelines and decisions, 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 2976
9

1317191_1

recordkeeping fees, and contract asset charges, including such fees for the 

QualCare and Gain Capital Plans in which the named Plaintiffs participated

(Memo. at 11; Hatton Decl., ¶ 24),

 Individuals within the Product Development Group, which is responsible for 

management of relationships with mutual fund complexes, review of

investment option performance and performance review reports, and 

negotiation of revenue sharing agreements with mutual fund complexes 

(Memo. at 9-10; Hatton Decl., ¶ 27),

 Individuals in the Marketing Department, which is responsible for designing, 

drafting, reviewing and approving marketing strategies and materials, 

including those distributed to the Gain Capital and QualCare Plans. The 

marketing materials include the Fiduciary Warranty Program (Memo. at 10; 

Hatton Decl., ¶¶ 25-26),

 Individuals in the Document Operations Department, which generates and 

distributes group annuity contracts issued to retirement plans (Memo. at 11-

12; Hatton Decl., ¶ 29 ), 

 Individuals in the Plan Compliance Department, which is responsible for 

assisting plan sponsors in drafting plan documents and summary plan 

descriptions, including those for the QualCare and Gain Capital Plans 

(Memo. at 11; Hatton Decl., ¶ 29), and

 Individuals in the Operations Solutions and Installation Services groups, 

which manage and coordinate TLIC’s plan installation services, plan 

sponsor and participant call centers, and participant enrollment services 

(Memo. at 12; Hatton Decl., ¶ 31).

Plaintiffs also took two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to further examine the location 

of potential witnesses and evidence. Those depositions confirmed that the 

witnesses with relevant knowledge are located in Los Angeles, where TLIC’s 

decisionmaking occurs. 

Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture an argument that two groups of “crucial 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 2977
10

1317191_1

non-party witnesses” would be outside of a California court’s subpoena authority. 

(Opp. at 25.) The first group consists of employees of Gain Capital Group, LLC 

and QualCare Alliance Networks, Inc., the named Plaintiffs’ employers, who dealt 

with TLIC or its representatives in establishing their 401(k) plans or entering into 

their group annuity contracts. (Id.) Plaintiffs do not identify these individuals, 

much less provide any evidence that they are “crucial” or have any knowledge of 

TLIC’s practices in designing and pricing investment option platforms. Moreover, 

to the extent that any plan sponsors or their employees might be witnesses, they are 

located nationwide, and roughly three times as many are located in California than 

in New Jersey.

Plaintiffs also portray a second group of “crucial non-party witnesses”

consisting of “representatives from the various investment management companies 

and investment advisors that managed and advised the mutual funds underlying the 

separate account investment options” offered by TLIC. (Opp. at 26.) Again, 

Plaintiffs offer no explanation of what testimony these representatives will provide 

or why it is “crucial”. There is no reason to believe that mutual fund 

representatives knew anything about TLIC’s decision-making process. To the 

extent mutual fund or other investment fees are relevant, they will be contained in 

prospectuses and similar documents, or will be referenced in investment optionrelated documentation maintained by TLIC (all of which is located in Los 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 2978
11

1317191_1

Angeles).

In contrast, as explained in Defendants’ moving papers, four former TLIC 

employees who were members of the TLIC Investment Committee and the Plan 

Compliance Department during the relevant period are beyond this Court’s 

subpoena power. (Memo. at 17; Hatton Decl., ¶¶ 23, 30.) Due to their former 

positions, all four have knowledge of the central facts in this dispute. (Hatton 

Decl., ¶¶ 23, 30.) Three of them are located in Los Angeles and the fourth lives in 

Chicago. (Id.) Three of these four individuals could be compelled to testify if trial 

were held in California, but none if trial were held in New Jersey. Accordingly, 

the convenience of the witnesses weighs in favor of transfer to the Central District 

of California. See In re Consolidated Parlodel Litig., 22 F. Supp. 2d 320, 324 

(D.N.J. 1998) (granting transfer of venue where “critical witnesses” were outside 

court’s subpoena power) (cited by Plaintiffs). 

D. The Convenience of the Parties Favors Transfer.

Plaintiffs argue that they will be inconvenienced if the case is transferred to 

Los Angeles because they “will need to attend the entire trial” and be away from

home, take time off from work, and incur costs. (Opp. at 21.) Whether the named 

Plaintiffs “will need to attend the entire trial” is debatable. As noted above, there 

is no reason to think that the named Plaintiffs have knowledge relevant to TLIC’s 

retirement plan investment product decisions. Nevertheless, if they were to attend 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 2979
12

1317191_1

trial, even in New Jersey, they would still miss work. And, in bringing this 

lawsuit, Plaintiffs must have expected that a certain amount of time and effort on 

their part would be required; any inconvenience is of their own making. Further, 

any inconvenience to them pales in comparison to the disruption that TLIC will 

face if multiple groups of officers, senior managers and key employees must travel 

to New Jersey for days or weeks at a time. Unlike Plaintiffs, some substantial

number of these critical TLIC employees will certainly be required to testify at 

trial. 

E. Los Angeles Is The Center of Gravity For This Matter.

Plaintiffs recognize that “[w]hen the central facts of a lawsuit occur outside 

the forum state, a plaintiff’s selection of that forum is entitled to less deference.” 

(Opp. at 14, quoting Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 473, 481 

(D.N.J. 1993).) Yet, they attempt to argue that the center of gravity principle or an 

examination of where the claim arose should not apply “where there is no physical 

scene to inspect.” (Opp. at 15.) Their view is unsupported by any legal authority 

and is contrary to decisions in this district. See NPR, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co. of 

Puerto Rico, No. CIV 00-0242 (WGB), 2001 WL 294077, at *4 (D.N.J. March 28, 

2001); Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. RAM Lodging, LLC, No. 09-2275 (SDW), 

2010 WL 1540926, at *6 (D.N.J. April 14, 2010); Thorlabs, Inc. v. Townsend 

Commc’ns , LLC, No. 03-4550 (JCL), 2004 WL 1630488, at *4 (D.N.J. June 30, 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 2980
13

1317191_1

2004). 

Further, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that this factor duplicates the consideration 

given to the location of the witnesses or documents misses the mark. (Opp. at 15.) 

Where the operative facts giving rise to the complaint take place outside of the 

forum, no nexus exists between the forum and the cause of action. Without such a 

nexus, witnesses and documents are not likely to be found within the forum,

tipping the scales in favor of transfer. Peikin v. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C., 576 F. 

Supp. 2d 654, 660 (D.N.J. 2008) (granting transfer to forum in which alleged acts 

giving rise to violations occurred) (cited by Plaintiffs). 

Here, Los Angeles was the center of the conduct at issue in the Complaint. 

TLIC’s retirement plan business is centered in Los Angeles -- all product 

development, construction of investment platforms, pricing, marketing, supervision 

of plan document development and new client implementation took place there. 

(Memo. at 6-7.) None of this work is done in New Jersey. The most appropriate 

venue is therefore the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs’ argument that the claims arose from acts taking place in New 

Jersey falls flat. They cite to the fact that New Jersey is where the plans contracted 

with TLIC, and where Plaintiffs made plan contributions, received plan 

communications, made investment decisions, and allegedly were injured. (Opp. at 

16.) However, the Complaint contends that TLIC violated ERISA and the 

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 2981
14

1317191_1

Investment Advisers Act in constructing and delivering its retirement plan 

investment products. As noted, all the work involved in developing, pricing, 

marketing and managing these products was done in California, not New Jersey. 

Plaintiffs’ statement that TLIC’s retirement business has “significant operations in 

New York” is misleading. (Opp. at 17.) The investment options and associated 

fees which are at the heart of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are provided predominantly 

from Los Angeles, not any other offices. (Memo. at 21 n.15.) Other offices 

provide recordkeeping and administrative service, but not investment services. 

(Fisher Decl., Exh. A, Tr. 18:5-19:21.)

Finally, the alleged injury is not considered in determining where the center 

of gravity is. NPR, 2001 WL 294077 at *4. In this case, it is the alleged breach of 

fiduciary duty or other alleged violation, which would have taken place in Los 

Angeles, not New Jersey, that determines the location of the center of gravity. Id. 

Accordingly, the center of gravity for this case weighs heavily in favor of transfer.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants request that the Court transfer the 

case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 2982
15

1317191_1

Dated: September 2, 2011 s/ Thomas R. Curtin 

Thomas R. Curtin

George C. Jones

GRAHAM CURTIN

A Professional Association

4 Headquarters Plaza

P.O. Box 1991

Morristown, NJ 07962-1991

Telephone: (973) 292-1700

Facsimile: (973) 292-1767

Robert N. Eccles (Pro Hac Vice)

Gary S. Tell (Pro Hac Vice)

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

1625 Eye Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006-4001

Telephone: (202) 383-5300

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

Attorneys for Defendants

Transamerica Life Insurance Company, 

Transamerica Investment Management, LLC, 

and Transamerica Asset Management, Inc.

Case 2:11-cv-00736-ES -CLW Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 2983