Roberts Disability Law Defeats Unum’s Attempt to Move ERISA Disability Case: Court Keeps Long-Term Disability Claim in Plaintiff’s Chosen Forum

Roberts Disability Law, P.C. secured a procedural win for its client in Goldman v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 3:26-cv-01022-LJC, —F.Supp.3d—-, 2026 WL 2184768 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2026), where United States Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros denied Unum’s motion to transfer this ERISA long-term disability dispute out of the Northern District of California. The ruling keeps the case in Plaintiff’s chosen forum and reinforces the deference courts owe an ERISA plaintiff’s choice of where to sue. This is a ruling on venue; the Court did not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s benefit claims, which remain to be decided.

Plaintiff, formerly an associate attorney at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, participated in an employee benefit plan providing long-term disability, “disability plus,” and life insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleges she became disabled with Long COVID in November 2023, and Defendant began paying benefits in May 2024. Defendant terminated each category of benefits in March and April 2025 and upheld those terminations on administrative appeal in January 2026. Plaintiff filed suit in the Northern District of California. Defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California, where Plaintiff resides.

Where can an ERISA plaintiff file suit? ERISA’s venue provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), permits a claim to be brought where the plan was administered, where the alleged breach took place, or where a defendant may be found. The Court explained that a defendant may be “found” wherever personal jurisdiction is properly asserted. Because ERISA provides for nationwide service of process, an American corporation such as Unum is subject to personal jurisdiction in any federal district court, and the Court confirmed the action could have been brought in the Eastern District. That threshold finding allowed the Court to reach the discretionary transfer factors under § 1404(a).

How much deference does an ERISA plaintiff’s choice of forum receive? The Court applied the strong presumption favoring a plaintiff’s choice of forum and noted that this choice is accorded great deference in ERISA cases specifically, citing the Ninth Circuit’s recognition that Congress struck the balance in favor of liberal venue. That deference decreases where a plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum or where the forum lacks significant contacts to the alleged conduct. The Court found Plaintiff’s non-residence reduced but did not eliminate the deference owed, because the case retained meaningful connections to the district. Plaintiff worked at Kirkland & Ellis’s San Francisco office, and at least some of the doctors whose opinions bear on her disability claim are located in the Northern District. The Court treated the location of Plaintiff’s employment as an operative fact tied primarily to this district.

Did filing for a faster docket amount to forum shopping? The Court rejected Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s interest in a quicker trial date constituted improper forum shopping. Plaintiff filed no repeated, redundant, or frivolous lawsuits and did not select the forum to exploit favorable rules. The Court explained that the Ninth Circuit has endorsed relative court congestion as a legitimate consideration, and a plaintiff’s reference to that factor does not justify disregarding her chosen forum. The Court distinguished the out-of-circuit authority Defendant cited, concluding it was inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent and the weight of district court authority in this circuit.

How did the remaining transfer factors weigh? The Court found convenience of the parties neutral, as no party resided in the Northern District. Because ERISA review is likely limited to the administrative record, the Court gave little weight to convenience of the witnesses, which marginally favored transfer, and found ease of access to the evidence neutral. Both forums were equally familiar with ERISA as federal law, local interest was neutral, and consolidation of claims was not at issue. Court congestion weighed against transfer given the longer median time to trial in the Eastern District.

Weighing the factors together, the Court concluded Unum had not met its burden to show the balance of convenience favored transfer, and it denied the motion. The case remains in the Northern District of California and proceeds toward resolution of Plaintiff’s benefit claims.