Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SEITZ v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION PLAN

February 12, 1997

DAVID A. SEITZ and THOMAS ROCCO, On Behalf of Themselves, and On Behalf of The Pension Plan of The Brewery Workers Pension Fund, Or, Alternatively, On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, and DOROTHY CASEY, On Behalf of the Estate of Patrick F. Casey, and On Behalf of The Pension Plan of The Brewery Workers Pension Fund, Or, Alternatively, On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, against THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION PLAN OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, Defendant.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: BATTS

 DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

 Plaintiffs, David A. Seitz, Thomas Rocco and Dorothy Casey have filed this suit for pension benefits, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, both on their own behalf and on behalf of The Pension Plan of the Brewery Workers Pension Fund, or alternatively as a class action, against The Board of Trustees of the Pension Plan of The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund ("Defendant"). Defendant now moves to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue, or in the alternative, transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, together with costs and attorneys fees.

 I. BACKGROUND

 On July 13, 1994, David A. Seitz, Thomas Rocco and Dorothy Casey filed suit in this Court seeking payment of pension plan benefits from the Defendant. (Am. Compl. P 1.) The claims of the three named Plaintiffs arise from their affiliation with The Brewery Workers Pension Fund, (the "Brewery Plan"), an employee pension benefit plan for brewery workers under ERISA, *fn1" that is currently administered by the Defendant. (Am. Compl. PP 10-12.) Specifically, Plaintiffs Seitz and Rocco are retired brewery workers and participants in the Brewery Plan, and Plaintiff Casey is the widow and proposed estate administrator of Patrick F. Casey, a retired brewery worker and participant in the Brewery Plan. (Am. Compl. PP 13-14.) Plaintiffs seek to recover pension benefits from the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund ("the Teamsters Plan"), also currently administered by the Defendant. (Am. Compl. P 15.)

 Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendant to comply with the terms of a 1973 Merger Agreement (the "Agreement"), (Am. Compl. PP 2, 16), which provided that active participants in the Brewery Plan on or after the effective date of the Merger, could elect to receive pension benefits under either the Brewery Plan or the Teamsters Plan. (Am. Compl. PP 2, 17-21.) The Agreement took effect years later and Plaintiffs claim that this delay was due to the Defendant's "contumacious conduct." (Am. Compl. PP 2-4, 24-28.) As such, Plaintiffs claim that the Merger Agreement should have become effective either in 1973 or alternatively in 1974. (Am. Compl. PP 4-5.) In this way, Plaintiffs could claim the better pension benefits provided by the Teamsters Plan, even though David Seitz, Thomas Rocco and Patrick Casey retired *fn2" before the Agreement's current December 1976 effective date. (Am. Compl. PP 51, 60, 62.)

 Today, Plaintiffs Rocco and Casey reside separately in Brooklyn, New York, while Plaintiff Seitz resides in Orlando, Florida. (Am. Compl. PP 13-14.) Defendant maintains its offices in Utica, New York. (Am. Compl. P 15.)

 II. DISCUSSION

 Defendant relies principally on ERISA venue provisions and a forum selection clause in the Teamsters Plan to support its motion for dismissal of this action on the grounds of improper venue or in the alternative, for transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

 The ERISA venue provision upon which the Defendant relies, *fn3" states in relevant part:

 
Where an action under this subchapter is brought in a district court of the United States, it may be brought in the district where the Plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where the Defendant resides or may be found . . . .

 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2).

 As to the first ERISA factor, Plaintiffs concede that the "Plan" at issue in this motion is "administered" in Utica, New York. (Am. Compl. P 15.) As to the second ERISA factor, the alleged breach "took place" in Utica because that is where all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.