Federal Court Report Your Eye on the Fourth Circuit and Federal Districts in NC Federal Court Report
Your Eye on the Fourth Circuit and Federal Districts in NC
  04.11.2014  
 
Sign Up For Alerts
Twitter
Facebook
Print PDF

MORE INFORMATION

If you have questions about this Client Alert, please contact:

Practice Areas

 
 

ERISA Case Survives Numerous Procedural Motions

Clifton L. Brinson, Michael W. Mitchell and Donald H. Tucker, Jr.

In Longo v. Trojan Horse Ltd., No. 5:13-CV-418-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2014)(J., Boyle), the court for the Eastern District considered a motion to dismiss or transfer an ERISA action in which the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had failed to make required employer contributions to a 401(k) plan.

The defendants presented a number of jurisdictional motions, starting first with subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants argued that a different statute, the Service Contract Act (SCA), 41 U.S.C § 6701 et seq. applied, to the exclusion of ERISA. The court disagreed, holding that the two statutes were not mutually exclusive. The court acknowledged there was a paucity of case law, but that there is nothing in ERISA to suggest it cannot be considered supplemental to the SCA. The court, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, explained that “when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. V. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 143-44 (2001).

The defendants next argued that the case should be dismissed under the “primary jurisdiction doctrine.” The doctrine applies to claims that, while “properly cognizable in court,” contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency. When applicable, a court would refer a case to the relevant agency, staying further proceedings so as to give the parties reasonable opportunity to seek an administrative ruling. Applying a non-exhaustive list of factors as guidance, the court refused to refer the matter to the Department of Labor (DOL). The court noted that the plaintiffs had notified the DOL of the lawsuit and yet it had not sought to intervene, and the defendants had not demonstrated that action by the DOL would necessarily lead to any inconsistent rulings.

The defendants then challenged personal jurisdiction as to the named individual defendants. Citing a pair of Middle District opinions, the court recognized that 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) has been interpreted to provide a national contacts test for personal jurisdiction. Hall v. Tyco Intern. Ltd., 223 F.R.D. 219, 229 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Schrader v. Trucking Emps. of New Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., 232 F.Supp.2d 560, 571 (M.D.N.C. 2002). “The relevant question is this whether the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the United States, not with the forum state.” The court also determined that personal jurisdiction would comport with Fifth Amendment due process because “”it is only the highly unusual cases that [any] inconvenience will rise to the level of constitutional concern’ where the national contacts test applies and the defendant is located within the United States.” Quoting Schrader at 572.

Leaving no stone unturned, the defendants also challenged venue. The court explained that “venue is proper under ERISA where the plan is administered, where the alleged breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found.” And an alleged breach occurs where the beneficiary receives his benefits. Two of the named plaintiffs reside in the Eastern District and thus venue is proper. The court also declined to transfer venue to the District of Maryland.


Your eye on the Fourth Circuit and the 
federal districts in North Carolina

 
. . .

Client Extranet  |  Sitemap  |  Disclaimer  |  Privacy Policy  |  ©2017

 

Smith Anderson publishes Alerts periodically as a service to clients and friends. The purpose of this Alert is to provide general information about significant legal developments and does not provide, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice. It does not convey an offer to represent you or an attorney-client relationship. Readers should be aware that the facts may vary from one situation to another, so the conclusions stated herein may not be applicable to the reader's particular circumstances. This communication may be considered a commercial electronic mail message under applicable legislation regarding unsolicited commercial email. 

 

Received this as a forward? SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE