Opinion
Case No. 3:04 CV 7526.
December 23, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION NATIONAL EMPLOYEE AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants to transfer venue (doc. No. 6) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1404. The matter has been fully briefed and is ready for a ruling by this Court. After considering all of the issues involved, this Court will deny the motion to transfer and set this matter for a telephone case management conference on January 24, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.
Briefly stated, Plaintiffs and other retirees were formerly employed at the Doehler-Jarvis Pottstown and Toledo facilities and were covered under various collective bargaining agreements. Those agreements covered health care benefits for retirees and their surviving spouses. In a case before this Court a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and other class members against Doehler-Jarvis and Harvard Industries on June 28, 2001 requiring them to provide lifetime health care benefits. That judgment was appealed to the Sixth Court of Appeals. In 2002 all relevant debtors filed voluntary petitions under various chapters of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. A series of orders entered by that court addressed the issue of funding for the benefits to the retirees. Defendant, National Employee Benefits, (NEBCO), served as escrow agent for the "Claims Shortfall Account and the Supplemental Account," into which funds were placed pursuant to these orders. Americana Financial was the administrator of the Under 65 Plan.
Plaintiffs brought this action alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the administration of the Under 65 Healthcare Plan ("Plan") for Harvard Industries during that company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. That complaint was amended on October 4, 2004, adding additional allegations with respect to both Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs characterize this matter as an ERISA case and the Court at this juncture is not in the position to disagree. They argue that venue is proper in this District because that Plan and the breach thereof occurred in Ohio. For purposes of a determination of venue, this Court will accept the position of Plaintiffs; 29 U.S.C. § 1131(f)(2) indicates that venue is proper where, among other things, the breach took place or where the defendant resides or may be found. Under ERISA breach occurs where the benefits were to be received by the Plan participants. Without determining with finality, because it is unnecessary to do so at this time whether the Defendants have minimal contacts and meet the "minimum contacts" case, it is true that both Defendants directed their activities toward Ohio Doehler-Jarvis retirees and administered a health care plan for residents of this District.
The orders upon which the movant relies as reasons to transfer venue to New Jersey were all consent orders, not ones reached after hearings or trials. Significantly, the resolution of the issue before this Court is ancillary to the ongoing reorganization efforts of the debtor(s), the plan for which was confirmed some time ago and presumably substantially consummated. Should the action in this Court have an economic impact on the debtor, which is unclear at this juncture, it is equally unclear whether it would interfere with the confirmed plan.
In reviewing this matter and the status or lack thereof of related matters in the bankruptcy court in New Jersey, the possible impact of this case upon the bankruptcy estate is so tenuous as to simply not justify a transfer of venue for or in the interests of justice. Because of prior contacts with this matter, this Court is as equipped as the New Jersey bankruptcy court to address these matters and, because the impact on the almost dormant bankruptcy proceedings in New Jersey is so questionable or tenuous, this Court will retain jurisdiction of this case and deny the motion to transfer venue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.