Lewis et al v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation et al
Filing
67
Memorandum Opinion and Order This case, including Plaintiffs' pending motion, will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/21/2011. (S,L)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LARRY LEWIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:11CV2517
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF No. 20]
This action is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No.
20). The Court has reviewed the memorandum in support (ECF No. 21), affidavit of Susan
Spencer (ECF No. 22), memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 62), and reply memorandum (ECF
No. 63). The Court has also considered the oral arguments of counsel offered during the Motion
Hearing held on December 16, 2011 and Plaintiffs’ Post-Hearing Brief (ECF No. 64). For the
reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion to transfer.
In June/July 2011, the United Steelworkers Union (“USW”) and Defendant Allegheny
Ludlum Corporation (“Allegheny Ludlum”)1 met in western Pennsylvania for negotiations as to
the next collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and plan documents for related health care
benefits. Over objection by the retirees, the active employees approved the contract on August 6,
2011. Therefore, beginning January 1, 2012, pre-Medicare eligible retirees will be required to
1
Both the union and the company are headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(4:11CV2517)
pay $130 per person per month/$260 per family per month with Medicare eligible retirees paying
$100 per person per month/$200 per family per month, a more than 300% and 500% increase
respectively. 2011 Proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 2-20) at 6.
It was not until November 18, 2011, however, that this case was filed in the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of a putative class of retired union members and their surviving
spouses who are currently enrolled in medical plans by virtue of separate agreements between the
USW and Allegheny Ludlum,2 which are referenced in each CBA. Plaintiffs argue in their
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) that under previous CBAs, they received a vested
benefit to a lifetime of free basic medical and later HMO coverage at no cost to them,3 and that
the implementation of retiree premium contributions in 2007 and 2011 constitute violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., the
National Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., and the applicable plan
documents and CBAs.
Defendants move the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the
Western District of Pennsylvania for two primary reasons. First, based on current enrollment
numbers, a mere 1% of the putative class members reside in Ohio. By contrast, 83% of these
individuals reside in western Pennsylvania (3,439 of 4,195 individuals). See ECF No. 22 at ¶ 44
2
The agreements relating to retiree health benefits are contained in documents
entitled Program of Hospital-Medical Benefits for Eligible Pensioners and Surviving
Spouses (“PHMBs”). Each PHMB is a Summary Plan Description for the actual
agreement, which is set forth and attached as an addendum to each PHMB. See ECF No.
25-1 at ¶ 16.
3
See ECF No. 58 at 3.
2
(4:11CV2517)
and ECF No. 22-3 at 2. Second, Plaintiffs have engaged in forum shopping simply in order to
capitalize on a unique precedent in the Sixth Circuit (i.e., Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace,
& Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Yard–Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476, 1482 (6th Cir.1983)).4
Section 1404(a) permits a change of venue for the convenience of parties and witnesses
as well as the interest of justice. It provides:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
have been brought.
The following factors enter into a court’s consideration of a motion for change of venue:
(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; (3) the
interests of justice; and (4) whether the civil action might have been brought in the
district to which the movant requests a transfer.
Roberts Metals v. Florida Properties Marketing, 138 F.R.D. 89, 91-92 (N.D. Ohio 1991), aff’d
No. 93-1562, 1994 WL 84735 (Fed. Cir. March 14, 1994). Further, two additional factors that
courts consider are plaintiff’s choice of forum and the respective docket loads of the two district
courts. Id. at 92, n. 2. See also Armco, Inc. v. Reliance National Insurance Company, No.
C-1-96-1149, 1997 WL 311474, at *4 (S.D.Ohio May 30, 1997) (“the balance need not be
4
Under the “Yard-Man inference,” intent to vest benefits that would otherwise be
exempt from ERISA’s vesting requirements can be inferred from specific language in the
parties’ agreements. When these circumstances are present such that the inference exists,
the benefit vests in favor of the recipient and a unilateral decrease in these vested benefits
would result in an ERISA violation. Price v. Board of Trustees of Indiana Laborer’s
Pension Fund, 632 F.3d 288, 292 (6th Cir. 2011). The Third Circuit has explicitly
rejected the presumption enunciated in Yard-Man and presumes retiree medical benefits
do not vest unless the “employer’s commitment to vest such benefits … [is] stated in
clear and express language.” International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr.
Implement Workers of America, U.A.W. v. Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d 130, 139 (3rd
Cir. 1999).
3
(4:11CV2517)
‘strongly in favor’ of the party seeking the transfer, but rather need only favor the party seeking
the transfer”); Hite v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 551 F. Supp. 390, 394 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
The language of the statute also indicates that the Court has broad discretion in ruling on such
motions. Mead Data Central, Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 679 F.Supp. 1455, 1457 (S.D.Ohio
1987) (citing Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955)).
In weighing the above relevant factors (particularly the presence of the overwhelming
majority of potential class members), the Court holds that Defendants have met their burden of
proving that transfer is appropriate. See Schmid Laboratories, Inc. v. Hartford Acccident and
Indem. Co., 654 F. Supp. 734, 736-37 (D.D.C. 1986) (ordering transfer and holding that plaintiffs
engaged in forum shopping where there was no real factual relationship to the forum and
plaintiffs were trying to capitalize on a unique favorable precedent). For the reasons that have
been articulated in the memoranda providing the points and authorities on which Defendants rely
in support of the motion,
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 20) is granted. This Court determines
that it will not rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) with the
following exception: In order to allow sufficient time for the Court to consider and enter a ruling
on the motion and given the fact that it takes 60 to 90 days to change the pension check process,
a Plaintiff or member of the proposed putative class who cannot pay what the increases are
without undue hardship shall not have their health care benefits dropped between January 1, 2012
and when the motion is finally resolved.
4
(4:11CV2517)
This case, including Plaintiffs’ pending motion, will be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 21, 2011
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
5
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?