When ERISA’s Venue Rules Send Your Case Somewhere Else: Two District Courts Transfer ERISA Claims Away From the Plaintiff’s Chosen Forum

Two district courts issued ERISA venue rulings within a day of each other, and both moved the case out of the forum the plaintiff picked. In Andersen v. Medical Solutions, L.L.C., 2026 WL 2574368 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2026), Judge Robert S. Huie transferred a 401(k) fiduciary-breach class action to the District of Nebraska. In Clear v. Amazon.com Services LLC Group Health & Welfare Benefit Plan, 2026 WL 2581797 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 1, 2026), Judge James M. Moody Jr. transferred a short-term disability claim to the Western District of Tennessee. Neither court ruled on the merits. Both decisions turned entirely on where an ERISA case may proceed.

Where Does ERISA Allow a Plaintiff to File?

ERISA’s venue provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), lets a participant sue in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found. The Ninth Circuit has described this provision as intended to expand, not restrict, the range of permissible venues. Both plaintiffs invoked that breadth. Both courts found it did not reach the forum each had chosen.

Why Did the California Court Transfer the Medical Solutions Case?

In Andersen, the named plaintiff resided in Council Bluffs, Iowa, next to Omaha, Nebraska, and brought a putative class action alleging breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries in connection with the administration of Medical Solutions’ 401(k) plan. Medical Solutions is headquartered in Omaha, administers the plan there, and its two financial advisors are located there. The company maintained an office in San Diego, which supplied the plaintiff’s basis for filing in the Southern District of California.

Judge Huie applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the Ninth Circuit’s Jones v. GNC Franchising factors. The court held that because the plaintiff represented a class, her choice of forum received reduced weight, a modification that guards against forum shopping, particularly where the representative plaintiff does not reside in the district. The court found several indicia of forum shopping: the plaintiff did not reside in the district, had no discernible ties to it, and none of the operative facts occurred there. The plaintiff did not connect any allegation to the San Diego office, and offered no support for the assertion that California had a greater interest in the case than any other state, given more than 24,000 plan participants spread across all fifty states.

The court also rejected the argument that ERISA entitled the plaintiff’s forum choice to “special weight.” Because Medical Solutions sought transfer to the district where the plan is administered, it was not moving the case outside ERISA’s venue provision, and the court noted it would reach the same result even if special weight applied. With the parties, most witnesses, and the bulk of the evidence in or near Nebraska, and with Rule 45(c)(1) compulsory-process advantages there, every factor other than the plaintiff’s choice favored transfer. The court granted the motion and transferred the case to the District of Nebraska.

Why Did the Arkansas Court Transfer the Amazon Disability Case?

In Clear, a Tennessee resident brought an ERISA claim alleging wrongful denial of short-term disability benefits under the Amazon.com Services LLC Group Health & Welfare Plan. She filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Amazon administers the plan exclusively in Seattle, Washington, and the complaint alleged nothing about where the breach occurred or why either defendant resided or could be found in Arkansas. The plaintiff argued Amazon “may be found” in Arkansas under § 1132(e)(2), pointing to its fulfillment centers, delivery stations, investment, hiring, and registered agent in the state.

Judge Moody rejected that argument. Relying on Daimler AG v. Bauman and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, the court explained that a corporation is “at home” only in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business, absent the exceptional case. Substantial in-state activity does not itself establish that a corporation is “found” in a forum for venue purposes, because the inquiry appraises a corporation’s activities in their entirety, and a corporation operating in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them. The court held the plaintiff had not established that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Arkansas. It transferred the case to the Western District of Tennessee, where the plaintiff resided and received the adverse benefit determination, under § 1406(a), or alternatively under § 1404(a).

What Do These Two Decisions Have in Common?

Both rulings are procedural. Neither court evaluated the fiduciary-breach allegations in Andersen or the disability denial in Clear, and neither decision reflects any view on whether either plaintiff’s underlying ERISA claim has merit. What the two share is a reminder that ERISA’s broad venue language does not guarantee that a case will stay where it was filed. A defendant’s business presence in a district, without more, did not anchor venue in either case, and in a class action the named plaintiff’s forum choice carried reduced weight. Each case now proceeds in the transferee court, with the merits still to be decided.