29 U.S.C. § 1404
Alternative method of withdrawal liability payments
A multiemployer plan may adopt rules providing for other terms and conditions for the satisfaction of an employer’s withdrawal liability if such rules are consistent with this chapter and with such regulations as may be prescribed by the corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Nieves v. Am. Airlines, 700 F. Supp. 769 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Nieves v. Am. Airlines, 700 F. Supp. 769 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “A mechanical application of the first-filed rule would defeat the goals underlying transfers pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). Where, as here, the accident occurred in Puerto Rico, almost all the witnesses are located in Puerto Rico, and plaintiff herself has filed a separate…”
McNair v. Monsanto Co., 279 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ga. 2003). “5 Defendants also assert that transfer is in the interest of justice and appropriate for all of the Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). Plaintiffs oppose transfer of any and all of their claims and assert that the forum selection clause should not be enforced on…”
I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. TMR Realty Co., 431 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). “Under Article IX, Paragraph 3 of the Merger Agreement, the PBGC affirmed that this method provides terms and conditions for the satisfaction of an employer’s withdrawal liability in accordance with ERISA Section 4224, 29 U.S.C. § 1404 . Id. Clarklift’s withdrawal liability…”
Stewart v. Dean-Michaels Corp., 716 F. Supp. 1400 (N.D. Ala. 1989). “In In re Ricoh Corporation, the writ of mandamus issued to this court was based on a finding that all of this court’s various specific findings of fact that this court thought were pertinent under 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) were inconsequential in view of the insurmountable burden of…”
Garcia-Tatupu v. Bert Bell/Peter Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, 249 F. Supp. 3d 570 (D. Mass. 2017). “Under 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), venue may be transferred to another district or division where the case might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses,” or “in the interest of justice.”
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 631 F. Supp. 640 (C.D. Cal. 1984). “§ 1399 (c), and d) allowing pension plans to fashion their own withdrawal rules, 29 U.S.C. § 1404 . These provisions, however, may provide “little, if any, comfort for the employers.”
Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharm., Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Del. 2007). “In the alternative, ARIAD argues that transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) is proper because of convenience of the parties and to avoid future disputes regarding personal jurisdiction.”
Mathews v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 953 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Ohio 2013). “In January of 2012, the case was remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and it was recently transferred to this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File…”
Michael L. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield (S.D. Ind. 2021). “The Southern District of Indiana is a More Appropriate Forum Defendants request in the alternative that this action be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana under 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). § 1404(a) allows a court, for “the convenience of parties and witnesses,” to…”
L. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield (D. Utah 2021). “The Southern District of Indiana is a More Appropriate Forum Defendants request in the alternative that this action be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana under 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). § 1404(a) allows a court, for “the convenience of parties and witnesses,” to…”
Robert J. Frey v. Anthony Binford Minter (11th Cir. 2020). “Frey’s arguments attacking the transfer under 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) are moot. Whether the case had proceeded in the Middle District of Florida or in the 8 Case: 20-10331 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 9 of 11 Middle District of Georgia, Florida choice-of-law rules would still…”
Cervantes v. CRST Int'l, Inc. (N.D. Iowa 2020). “Legal Standard Motions to transfer venue based on a forum selection clause are governed by 29 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). Atl. Marine Const. Co.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.