Sims v. American Postal Workers Accident Benefit Association, et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. The Court will take no action regarding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) or the various pleadings filed by the Plaintiff and Defendants relating to some alleged form of litigation misconduct related to claims asserted by the Defendants against Mr. Tierney. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 3/7/12. (bdb) [Transferred from pawd on 3/8/2012.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNYLVANIA
WILLIAM P. SIMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS ACCIDENT
BENEFIT ASSOCIATION,
Defendant
and
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS ACCIDENT
BENEFIT ASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No.2: l1-cv-O 1396
)
) Judge Mark R. Hornak
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Transfer this civil action to the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. For the reasons which follow,
the Motion will be GRANTED and this civil action will be transferred to that court pursuant to
the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
This action is brought by William P. Sims, Jr., who is appearing pro se. Sims is a retired
senior officer of the Defendant American Postal Workers Accident Benefit Association
("APWABA" or "Association"), serving as its national director from September 1,2004 through
August 2006. Sims brings this claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and 29 U.S.C. § 1132, claiming that the Defendants denied
him a pension benefit in the amount he believed he was entitled. Sims claims that his pension
payment should be $281.3 8 per month greater than is being paid to him. Sims seeks all relief
that might be available to him under the provisions of ERISA. (ECF No. 1, ~6)
Defendants responded to Sims' complaint by moving to transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the District ofNew Hampshire, claiming that under the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the case law developed by our Court of Appeals, the action more properly
lies in that judicial district, and noting that the case could have been brought there in the first
instance, and venue and jurisdiction over Defendants is proper in that district. (ECF No.2)
Defendants allege that applying the "private" and "public" factors identified by our Court of
Appeals in Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Company, 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir 1995), this
litigation would more conveniently proceed, and the interests ofjustice would be better served,
by its transfer from this court to the federal court in New Hampshire.
Specifically, Defendants point to (and Plaintiff concedes) the fact that they are organized
under New Hampshire law and regularly conduct their business in the State of New Hampshire.
(ECF No.1 at ~2) This dispute focuses on an interpretation of the pension plan ("Plan")
applicable to Sims and its other elected officers and employees and based on their work in the
State of New Hampshire. Defendants note that the Plan is administered by a Plan Administrator
in New Hampshire, who also serves as the Association's national director. (ECF No.3 at ~~6-9)
By affidavit (ECF No.5), the Defendants have informed the Court (without contradiction by
Plaintiff) that all decisions concerning benefits due to participants in the Plan, along with all
fiduciary decisions regarding it and its general administration, occur within the State of New
Hampshire. Defendants also contend that the Defendant Association, its board of directors, the
2
Plan and the Plan Administrator are all physically located in New Hampshire, as are the books
and records related to the Plan, its administration, Sims' claims for benefits and all benefit
payments to him.
Defendants recognize that a critical factor in the transfer decision is the preference of the
Plaintiff (ECF No.3 at ~6), who now resides in and has brought this action in this Court.! The
record material submitted by Plaintiff and Defendants demonstrates that not until only shortly
before, or at or about the time of, the filing had Plaintiff Sims resided in this District and
previous to that had resided consistently in the District of New Hampshire. 2
In response, Plaintiff argues that this is a "very simple case, if the Defendants would
work [with Plaintiff] to expedite the judicial process." (ECF No. 12 at ~2) Further, Plaintiff
contends that his financial situation is "very tight," that he is currently unemployed, living on
partial "pensions," and that he has two children in their last year of college. According to
Plaintiff, this means that his financial situation counsels that the Western District of
Pennsylvania is the preferred venue for him. (ECF No. 12 at ~4)
At the same time, Plaintiff in his filings makes several averments which actually strongly
favor transferring the case to the District ofNew Hampshire. Plaintiff points out that he believes
there are two (2) other Plan-covered retirees who have a similar benefit calculation issue
one
residing in the State of California and the other currently residing in the State ofNew
1 ERlSA provides that civil actions to enforce rights under it may be brought in the district where the plan is
administered, in the district where the breach took place, or in a district where the defendant resides or may be
found. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Plaintiffs pro se complaint is sparse, to say the least, in factual allegations as to
why this District is a proper venue for this action, and Defendants have not contended that venue is wholly improper
in this District in the first instance under either 28 U.S.c. § 1406 or 29 U.s.C. § 1 132(e)(2). (ECF No.3 at ~4).
Thus, the Court will consider Defendants' Motion as solely one for transfer under 28 U.S.c. § 1404(a).
Defendants assert that according to the change of address notice Plaintiff sent to them, this action was filed one (1)
month after Plaintiff moved to this District (ECF No.3 at ~6). Plaintiff contends that he moved to this District in
June 2011, five (5) months before it was filed. (ECF No. 12 at ~3). In any event, by his own admission, Plaintiff
would have begun receiving the allegedly improperly calculated benefits four (4) months before he relocated from
New Hampshire to this District. (ECF No. I at ~5, No. 12 at ~3).
2
3
Hampshire. (ECF No. 12 at ~5) Further, in a filing captioned "Report of Additional Defendant
Misconduct and Notice of Related Action," Plaintiff advises the Court that on or about January
26,2012 the Defendant Pension Plan brought an action against its former actuary Thomas P.
Tierney in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, pending at Docket
No. 12-cv-29-LM. (ECF No. 19 at ~2) According to Plaintiff, that pending New Hampshire
action and this case are related actions "because of a significant overlap in parties, witnesses,
counsel and, most importantly, issues." (ECF No. 19 at ~3) In that regard, according to Plaintiff
the Defendants have engaged in a series of actions, culminating in that New Hampshire lawsuit,
and beginning with a demand letter dated December 5, 2011 from counsel for the Plans to Mr.
Tierney aimed at intimidating Mr. Tierney regarding his alleged actions on behalf of the
Defendant Plan. (ECF Nos. 18, 19)3
Based on a full consideration of the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), namely the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest ofjustice, and those factors recognized
by our Court of Appeals in Jumara, the Court concludes that this action should proceed in the
District of New Hampshire and not in this District. 4 Although the Plaintiff is appearing pro se, is
now a resident of this District, and claims to have limited financial ability to pursue this litigation
which would likely make it facially more convenient for Plaintiffs case to remain in this Court,
3 Subsequent to the filing of the Motion for Transfer, the Defendants have also filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) and have filed an opposition (ECF No. 16) to Plaintiff's self-styled Report of Defendant
Misconduct and Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 15)
The Jumara court characterized the relevant factors as "public" enforcement of a judgment,
practicality/ease/expense of trial, an interest in the decision of local interests locally, applicable public policy,
administrative burdens on the respective courts - and "private" plaintiff'S forum preference, defendant's forum
preference, where the claim arose, convenience of the parties, the relative fmancial and physical condition of the
parties, to convenience of the witnesses, and the location of books and records. 55 F.3d at 879-80.
4
4
all of the other § 1404(a) and Jumara factors are overwhelmingly in favor of transferring the
litigation and disposition of this action to the District of New Hampshire.
5
All of the Defendants are present in New Hampshire. The Plaintiffs underlying service
(for which the benefits in question have accrued and have been and will be recompensed through
a pension) occurred when the Plaintiff was employed in New Hampshire. The Plan
Administrator and all of the Plan records, including those related to Plaintiffs claim for benefits
and its calculation, are located in New Hampshire. Plaintiffs self-identified sole witness has his
office nearby in Framingham, Massachusetts, which means that all of the witnesses are either in
or very close to New Hampshire. See Buckley v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 762 F.Supp. 430, 440 (D.
N.H. 1991) (no showing of greater convenience to witnesses from requested transfer). The
Plaintiff, by his own admission, advises that a recently-filed related case involving same or
similar parties, issues and claims is now pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire. To the extent that there are other Plan participants similarly situated
to Plaintiff, whose benefit treatment would be involved in the consideration of Plaintiff's claims,
records regarding them are also located in New Hampshire. 6
Some travel by someone will be inevitably involved in the litigation of this case. Were
the case to proceed here, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, defense witnesses along with
third-party witnesses, along with Mr. Tierney (whom Plaintiff has identified as his sole witness,
Our Court of Appeals has upheld the transfer of a pro se civil action. See In re Kissi, 353 Fed. Appx. 774 (3d Cir.
2009).
5
While there is some authority for according greater judicial reluctance to the transfer of an ERISA action, Wright,
Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 3848, n.21 (2007), courts have transferred such
actions where the § 1404(a) and case law factors have strongly supported transfer, McFarland v. Yegen, 699 F.Supp.
10 (D. N.H. \988), particularly when the operative facts of the case have no material connection to the district in
which the action was filed. Id. Not only is that true here, but it must be noted that by Plaintiff's own admission, the
allegedly improperly calculated benefits were first paid, e.g. the breach first occurred, to Plaintiff (the Defendant
Association's former National Director/Secretary/Treasurer) at least four (4) months before he moved from New
Hampshire.
6
5
ECF No. 19 at ~1), would have to travel to the Western District of Pennsylvania. Conversely,
should the action be litigated in the District of New Hampshire, it would appear that the Plaintiff
alone would have to travel to New Hampshire. Further, given the nature of his claim, it is likely
that it may be resolved in whole or in part based on an interpretation of the Plan and benefit
calculation documents (as opposed to repetitive or lengthy in-court trial proceedings).7
Considered as a whole, all of these factors strike the balance heavily in favor of the action being
litigated in New Hampshire, particularly given that there is no doubt that the State of New
Hampshire can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, and that venue provisions of
ERISA provide that the case could have been brought there in the first instance. 8 29 U.S.C. §
1132(e)(2)
Finally, there is no peculiar local interest in resolving this controversy in this District. It
appears from all the filings in the case that the Plaintiff resided in the State of New Hampshire
when he applied for and first began receiving the benefits at issue, and the ongoing
administration and disposition of those benefits, including payments to the Plaintiff, occurs in
and from the State ofNew Hampshire. In short, there is no compelling Pennsylvania or Western
District of Pennsylvania interest in the litigation of this action which would outweigh the many
factors counseling in favor of transfer of this action.
7 While the Plaintiff is currently pro se, he may of course retain counsel in New Hampshire, and should he be
successful in this action, recover his attorneys' fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). Further, it would appear that
the Local Rules of Court for the District of New Hampshire would permit his participation in certain pretrial
proceedings by telephone, with leave of Court. LR 16.3.
As noted earlier, on the record before the Court, it is not at all clear that venue is proper in this District, even given
ERISA's liberal venue provisions. The Plan is not administered here and there is no factual basis presented from
which to conclude that it may be "found" here. Furthermore, the breach of the Plan provisions would have occurred
with the first improperly-calculated payment in March 2011, when both the Plan and Plaintiff were located in New
Hampshire, which would obviate the need to resolve the age-old "where sent from/where received" debate relative
to where an ERISA breach occurs. See Turner v. CF&J Steel Corporation, 510 F.Supp. 537, 541 (KD. Pa. 1981)
(breach of plan provisions occurred in districts where payment amount decisions were made and from which
payments were sent), see also Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction: 3825, n.23-24
(2007).
8
6
While the Court is cognizant of Plaintiff's pro se status, and recognizes that the venue
and forum chosen by the Plaintiff is entitled to considerable weight, those factors are not
conclusive when considered in the context of the entire record. While this Court is generally
hesitant to transfer a matter from this Court's docket to that of a sister District in our federal
system, the application of28 U.S.c. § 1404(a), the factors identified by our Court of Appeals in
Jumara, the facts submitted as of record in the affidavit of the Defendant and those admitted in
the pleadings and other filings of the Plaintiff as noted above strongly favor the transfer of this
action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
In light of that disposition, the Court will take no action regarding the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) or the various pleadings filed by the
Plaintiff and Defendants relating to some alleged form of litigation misconduct related to claims
asserted by the Defendants against Mr. Tierney.9
An appropriate order will issue.
Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge
Dated:
MAa.tH 1 \'2..0 l '2
To the extent that there is any merit to the Plaintiffs assertions of "misconduct" on the part of Defendants relative
to Mr. Tierney or related to his service as actuary to the Plan (as to which matters this Court makes no finding), the
District Court in New Hampshire is in a far better position to address those matters, given the pendency of the Plan's
claim against Mr. Tierney there and the fact of Mr. Tierney's service to the Plan in New Hampshire.
9
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?