SENICK v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 12/8/14. 12/8/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID SENICK

v.

C.A. NO. 14-1911

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION
DECEMBER
I

8, 2014

03, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation Pension Plan (the "Plan") was terminated and

defendant Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") became statutory trustee by
agreement with the Plan Administrator. Plaintiff, a participant in the Plan, brought this action,

prose, challenging the the decision of PBGC's Appeals Board that he is not entitled to additional
benefits under the Plan. PBGC has filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient
service of process, improper venue and failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, the
motion will be denied and the case will be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, the only district in which venue is appropriate.
Title 29 U.S.C. § 1303(f) provides the "exclusive means for bringing an action against
[PBGC] under Title IV, including in its capacity as trustee." 29 U.S.C. § 1303(£)(4). Under that
statute, any action brought by a participant or beneficiary against PBGC may only be filed in the
"appropriate court." 29 U.S.C. § 1303(£)(1). The term "appropriate court" is defined in 29 U.S.C.

§ 1303(£)(2) to mean: (A) the United States District Court before which proceedings under

section 4041 or 4042 are being conducted; (B) if no such proceedings are being conducted, the
United States District Court for the judicial district in which the plan has its principal place
office; or (C) the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 29 U.S.C. §
1303(f)(2).
Venue is unavailable in this district under§ 1303(f)(2)(A) because there are no pension
plan termination proceedings being conducted under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1341 or 1342. In addition, the
Plan was terminated by agreement between PBGC and Bethlehem Steel in 2003. Because the
Plan has been terminated and transferred to PBGC as statutory trustee, the Plan no longer has a
principal office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Therefore, venue is unavailable in this district under
29 U.S.C. § 1303(f)(2)(B). As a result, venue is only appropriate under§ 1303(f)(2)(C) or in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See, ~' United Steel, Paper &
Forestry. Rubber. Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. and Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. PBGC, 602 F.
Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (D. Minn. 2009); Carstens v Michigan Dep't of Treasury, 2009 WL
2581504 at *2 (W.D. Mich. July 7, 2009); Stephens v. US Airways Group, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
98665 (N.D. Ohio June 28, 2007).
An appropriate Order follows.