International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund et al v. A. Laugeni & Son, Inc. et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Granting in Part and Denying without prejudice in Part 11 Motion to Change Venue, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 6/29/2015. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
INTERNATIONAL PAINTERS AND
ALLIED TRADES INDUSTRY PENSION
FUND, et al.
Plaintiffs

*
*
*

vs.

*

A. LAUGENI & SON, INC. et al.,

*

Defendants
*

*

*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-15-370

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has before it Defendant, Carolyn Laugeni's,
(1) Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), (2)
Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and (3) Motion to
Dismiss Count IV for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief
May Be Granted [Document 11] and the materials submitted
relating thereto.

The Court finds that a hearing is

unnecessary.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs: the International Painters and Allied Trades

Industry Pension Fund ("Pension Fund"); the Finishing Trades
Institute, f/k/a International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades Joint Apprenticeship and Training Fund ("FTI" and
together with Pension Fund, the "ERISA Funds"); the Political

Action Together Fund ("PAT"); the Painters and Allied Trades
Labor Management Cooperation Initiative ("LMCI" and together
with PAT and the ERISA Funds, the "Funds"); and Daniel R.
Williams filed this suit against Defendants

A. Laugeni & Son,

Inc., a dissolved corporation ("the Company"), and

Carolyn J.

Laugeni ("Ms. Laugeni").
Plaintiffs present claims relating to the Company's failure
to make required pension plan contributions in four Counts:
Count I

Company's failure to pay certain
contributions

Count II

Company failure to pay certain
contributions

Count III

Breach of fiduciary duty

Count IV

Prohibited transaction

By the instant motion, Ms. Laugeni seeks to have the Court
transfer the case to the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a), dismiss the case based upon the doctrine of
forum non conveniens and dismiss Court IV for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

II.

Transfer
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, "[f]or the

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
2

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought."
In Dow v. Jones, 232 F. Supp. 2d 491, 499 (D. Md. 2002),
Judge Blake of this Court stated:
The standards for transfer are: (1) the
transferee court must be a court in which
the
action
could
have
been
brought
initially;
(2)
the
transfer
must
be
convenient to the parties and witnesses; and
(3) the transfer must be in the interest of
justice.
Further, "unless the balance is
strongly in favor of the defendant, the
plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be
disturbed."
Id. (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)
(internal footnote and citations omitted).
This case could have been filed in the District of
Connecticut.
In regard to the parties, Plaintiffs are based in Maryland,
and the pertinent plans are administered there.

Ms. Laugeni is

a resident of Connecticut who is not alleged to have taken any
pertinent action in Maryland or to have any connection with
Maryland.
In regard to the witnesses, Ms. Laugeni states that "all of
the witnesses, including employees of the defunct co-defendant
[the Company] are all (sic) located in Connecticut."
11] at 2.

[Document

Therefore, it appears that no non-party witness would

be within the range of a trial subpoena issued by this Court.
3

Plaintiffs do not deny this and do not identify any individual
or relevant evidence with regard to whom or which Maryland would
be more convenient than Connecticut.1
Plaintiffs have based their opposition to a transfer to
Connecticut upon a general allegation that they would incur
additional costs if the case were transferred.

Plaintiffs do

not present any case specific support for this contention.
Indeed, with all the witnesses pertaining to facts other than
the contents of Plaintiffs' records located in Connecticut, it
appears that it would not be possible to conduct non-party
discovery in Maryland even if the case remained here.

Moreover,

the Court must note that none of Plaintiffs' counsel are based
in Maryland, but are based in Philadelphia.

Hence, there would

appear to be a relatively minor increase, if any increase at
all, of the cost to Plaintiffs caused by a transfer to
Connecticut.
Ms. Laugeni has shown that, obviously, there would be a
significant increase in her cost and inconvenience if the case
were to remain in Maryland.
The interests of justice strongly favor Ms. Laugeni's
position that the case should be transferred.

1

Presumably, Plaintiffs may present a Maryland based witness
to testify regarding the contents of relevant plan records.
4

The Court, considering the pertinent factors, exercises its
discretion to transfer the case to the District of Connecticut.

III. Other Matters
The Court, having decided to transfer the case: (1) has
rendered the forum non conveniens contention moot and (2) shall
leave the determination of the adequacy of the pleading of Count
IV to the transferee court.
Finally, the Court notes that the Company has not responded
to the Complaint and is identified in the Complaint as a
dissolved corporation.

Compl. [Document 1] ¶ 15.

Plaintiffs

can proceed with regard to any motion for a default judgment
against the Company in the transferee court.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons:
1.

Carolyn Laugeni's, (1) Motion to Transfer Venue
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), (2) Motion to Dismiss for
Forum Non Conveniens and (3) Motion to Dismiss Count
IV for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief
May Be Granted [Document 11] is GRANTED IN PART.

2.

The Court shall transfer this case to the District
of Connecticut and denies, as moot, the request for
dismissal for forum non conveniens.

5

3.

The request to dismiss Count IV is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to its renewal before the transferee
court.

SO ORDERED, on Monday, June 29, 2015.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

6