Riemer & Associates Convinces Federal Court that ERISA Permits a Chicago Resident to Sue MetLife in New York
Cohn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39161 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2007).
Riemer & Associates, LLC and the Chicago-based law firm of Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant convinced the Federal Court in Manhattan to deny MetLife's motion to transfer the case to Chicago. MetLife had the burden of establishing that the venue selected by the plaintiff presents a "substantial burden" in order to justify disruption of the plaintiff's choice of forum. MetLife could not establish that it was burdened by plaintiff's choice of forum or that any likely witnesses would be inconvenienced.
This case is an important precedent for any plaintiff in an ERISA case who would prefer to sue a defendant in a different State (particularly New York), rather than his or her State of residence. ERISA permits a plaintiff to sue in any federal court in which the long term disability plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where the defendant resides or may be found. 29 U.S.C. 1132(e)(2).
Riemer & Associates, LLC and the Chicago-based law firm of Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant convinced the Federal Court in Manhattan to deny MetLife's motion to transfer the case to Chicago. MetLife had the burden of establishing that the venue selected by the plaintiff presents a "substantial burden" in order to justify disruption of the plaintiff's choice of forum. MetLife could not establish that it was burdened by plaintiff's choice of forum or that any likely witnesses would be inconvenienced.
This case is an important precedent for any plaintiff in an ERISA case who would prefer to sue a defendant in a different State (particularly New York), rather than his or her State of residence. ERISA permits a plaintiff to sue in any federal court in which the long term disability plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where the defendant resides or may be found. 29 U.S.C. 1132(e)(2).