ERISA Pension Fund’s Maryland Venue Choice Overturned in $0.22 million Contribution Suit

BALTIMORE (LN) — U.S. Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett transferred an ERISA lawsuit seeking more than $0.22 million in unpaid pension contributions from a Tennessee contractor to the Eastern District of Tennessee, ruling that the defendant’s home district is far more convenient for witnesses and evidence than Maryland.

The International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund and related plans sued C3 Industrial Blasting & Coatings, Inc., alleging the Knoxville-based company failed to report and pay contributions for work performed between December 2017 and August 2024.

The complaint alleges C3 owes $0.22 million in unpaid contributions, plus $30,253 in liquidated damages, at least $44,508 in interest, and $4,950 in auditing costs for the period of January 1, 2019, through March 31, 2023.

C3 moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that Maryland has little connection to the underlying dispute.

Bennett agreed, noting that while the pension funds are administered in Hanover, Maryland, the alleged breaches occurred in Tennessee.

“Maryland has little connection to this dispute,” Bennett wrote. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum in Maryland is significantly lessened, and this factor weighs in favor of transfer.”

The judge found that potential witnesses, including former employees of C3 and representatives of Local Unions 226 and 437, are located in eastern Tennessee or nearby Georgia.

District Council 77 is based in Decatur, Georgia, which Bennett noted is “some 220 miles from Knoxville, and more than 670 miles from Baltimore.”

The court also highlighted that C3’s financial records and principals are located in Knoxville, and that two employees primarily responsible for the reporting at issue are no longer with the company and would likely resist being deposed in Maryland.

“Tennessee is convenient for C3, some Plaintiffs, and some key witnesses,” Bennett wrote. “Given those considerations as well as the inherent value in litigating a case where the conduct is alleged to have occurred, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.”

The decision follows similar rulings by Bennett’s colleague, U.S. District Judge Hollander, in other ERISA cases brought plaintiffs, where venue was transferred because the disputed conduct occurred outside Maryland.