Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Boeser, Inc.
1:14-cv-01458
E.D. Va.Jan 28, 2015Background
- Plaintiff (Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund) sued Boeser, Inc. (Minnesota corp.) and Lawrence Boeser (Minnesota resident, president and sole shareholder) under ERISA and Minnesota law for withdrawal liability, evasion, shareholder/trust-fund liability, fraudulent transfer, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Plaintiff administers the Plan from Fairfax, Virginia; it sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and served Boeser in Minnesota.
- Boeser moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer to the District of Minnesota; Boeser, Inc. separately moved to transfer venue.
- Central legal questions: (1) whether Virginia federal courts have personal jurisdiction over Boeser given ERISA’s nationwide service provision; (2) whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to Minnesota is appropriate.
- The court considered the national-contacts due process test (Fifth Amendment), ERISA’s § 1132(e) nationwide service, witness and party convenience, plaintiff’s forum choice (administration district), and interests of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Boeser | ERISA § 1132(e) authorizes nationwide service where the plan is administered in Virginia, so Virginia has jurisdiction | Boeser argued lack of sufficient contacts to justify jurisdiction in Virginia | Court held ERISA’s nationwide service and the national-contacts test satisfy due process; personal jurisdiction exists over Boeser |
| Applicability of national-contacts (Fifth Amendment) test | National-contacts applies when federal statute authorizes nationwide service; protects ERISA enforcement in plan’s administration district | Defendants implied Fourteenth Amendment minimum-contacts analysis should control | Court applied national-contacts test and found sufficient aggregate US contacts via service and plan administration in Virginia |
| Transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) — witness convenience | Plaintiff: forum in Virginia is proper and deference is merited; witnesses’ testimony can be taken by deposition; non-party witnesses’ inconvenience not shown | Defendants: key non-party witnesses and documents are in Minnesota; subpoena power limits in Virginia favor transfer | Court found defendants failed to show live testimony is necessary or witnesses unwilling to travel; witness convenience weighed against transfer |
| Transfer of venue — parties’ convenience & interest of justice | Plaintiff: home forum, ERISA policy favors suits where plan is administered; documentary evidence portable; transfer would unfairly burden Plaintiff | Defendants: Minnesota is more connected to operative facts and would be less burdensome | Court held plaintiff’s forum choice, ERISA policy, lack of extreme hardship on defendants, and interest of justice counseled against transfer; motions to transfer denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction by preponderance; prima facie standard where no evidentiary hearing)
- Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1989) (district court must draw inferences for plaintiff and apply prima facie standard on jurisdictional motion)
- Wolf v. Richmond County Hospital Auth., 745 F.2d 904 (4th Cir. 1984) (same standard for resolving jurisdictional factual disputes in plaintiff’s favor)
- Bd. of Trustees v. McD Metals, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 1040 (E.D. Va.) (national-contacts test under Fifth Amendment when statute provides nationwide service)
- Denny’s, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2004) (upholding jurisdiction under nationwide-service-related analysis)
- Bd. of Trustees v. Elite Erectors, Inc., 212 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir. 2000) (§ 1132(e) comports with Constitution for nationwide service)
- ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 1997) (pendent personal jurisdiction allows adjudication of state claims that arise from a common nucleus of operative fact)