Clause v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services Incorporated et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/15/2016. (See Order for details) (KEP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, )
)
Inc., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Lorna Clause,

No. CIV 15-388-TUC-CKJ
ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer

16

Venue (Doc. 15) filed by Defendants Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

17

(Sedgwick”) and Ascension Health Alliance (“Ascension”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

18

The Court declines to schedule this matter for argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f); 27A Fed.Proc.,

19

L. Ed. § 62:367 ("A district court generally is not required to hold a hearing or oral argument

20

before ruling on a motion.").

21
22

Factual and Procedural History1

23

Plaintiff Lorna Sue Clause (“Clause”) was employed as a Patient Care Technician for

24

Carondelet. Because of two shoulder surgeries, calcifying tendonitis, supraspinatus tendon

25

tear shoulder impingement and trapezius pain, Clause has been unable to work since August

26
27
1

28

For purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, the facts are taken from the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 14).

1

2012 as a Patient Care Technician.

2

Clause applied for disability benefits through the Ascension Long-Term Disability

3

Plan (“Plan”). The Plan is administered through Ascension and Sedgwick provides benefits

4

and performs as the Claim Administrator of the Plan. Clause’s claim for long-term disability

5

benefits was accepted, reflecting an onset of disability by August 2012.

6

Following an initial termination of benefits and a successful appeal, Clause’s benefits

7

were again terminated on November 18, 2014. By letter of January 8, 2015, Defendants

8

again terminated Clause's benefits without mentioning its previous November 18, 2014,

9

termination letter – the rationale for the termination of benefits was modified.

10
11
12
13
14
15

Clause appealed the termination of her benefits.

Defendants confirmed the

termination of benefits, but again modified its rationale for the termination of benefits.
Clause initiated this action seeking declaratory relief, to recover benefits and enforce
her rights under the Plan, and to obtain equitable relief.2
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue
(Docs. 15 and 16).3 A response and a reply have been filed.

16
17

Forum Selection Clause

18

Defendants claim that venue is improper in this Court because the forum selection

19

clause contained in the Plan identifies the United States District Court for the Eastern District

20

of Missouri as the exclusive venue for any claim “relating to or arising under” the Plan.

21

Motion, Ex. A, § 9.20 (Doc. 16-1). Defendants assert that, absent exceptional circumstances,

22
23
24
25
26

2

Although the First Amended Complaint requests supplemental relief pursuant to
“1131(a)(3).” there is no such provision. Indeed, 29 U.S.C. § 1131 addresses criminal
remedies. The Court accepts Clause’s reference to “1131(a)(3)” as a reference to 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(a)(3) which provides for injunctive and equitable relief.
3

27

This motion supersedes the prior Motion to Dismiss filed by Sedgwick. The Court
will deny the superseded motion as moot.

28

-2-

1

the forum selection clause is mandatory and must be enforced. Further, Defendants assert

2

Clause has not and cannot show exceptional circumstances. Clause asserts, however, that

3

when Congress has granted a plaintiff the a right to choose venue in a statute, as in the venue

4

provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), codified at 29

5

U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), a defendant may not restrict or alter that statute’s special venue

6

provision through contract.4

7

“The presence of a valid forum-selection clause requires district courts to adjust their

8

usual § 1404(a) analysis in three ways.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for

9

W. Dist. of Texas, — U.S. — , 134 S.Ct. 568, 581, 187 L.Ed.2d 487 (2013). “First, the

10

plaintiffs choice of forum merits no weight ..., as the party defying the forum-selection

11

clause, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the

12

parties bargained is unwarranted.” Id. at 582. Second, the district court should not “consider

13

arguments about the parties' private interests.” Id. “When parties agree to a forum-selection

14

clause, they waive the right to challenge the preselected forum as inconvenient or less

15

convenient for themselves or their witnesses, or for their pursuit of the litigation. A court

16

accordingly must deem the private-interest factors to weigh entirely in favor of the

17

preselected forum.” Id. A district court is to only consider arguments regarding

18

public-interest factors. Id. “Third, when a party bound by a forum-selection clause flouts

19

its contractual obligation and files suit in a different forum, a § 1404(a) transfer of venue will

20

not carry with it the original venue's choice-of-law rules – a factor that in some circumstances

21

may affect public-interest considerations.” Id.

22

The enforceability of forum selection clauses is governed by federal law.

23
24
4

27

Clause points out that the Supreme Court has been asked to make a determination as
to whether the policy considerations underlying ERISA’s venue provision preclude
enforcement of forum selection clauses that plan administrators include in ERISA plans.
Since the filing of the response, the Supreme Court has denied review. Smith v. Aegon
Companies Pension Plan, 2016 WL 100358 (Mem) (Jan. 11, 2016).

28

-3-

25
26

1

Manetti–Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir.1988). A forum

2

selection clause is presumptively valid and “should control absent a strong showing that it

3

should be set aside.” M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972); Argueta

4

v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Although Bremen is an

5

admiralty case, its standard has been widely applied to forum selection clauses in general.”).

6

To avoid the application of a forum selection clause, the party opposing its enforcement must

7

show that it is unreasonable under the circumstances. M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 10; see also

8

Manetti-Farrow, 858 F.2d at 514-15. The enforcement of a forum selection clause is

9

unreasonable where: (1) the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was the product of fraud

10

or overreaching; (2) the party objecting to the clause would effectively be deprived of his day

11

in court if the clause is enforced; and (3) the enforcement of the clause would “contravene

12

a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.” Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc.,

13

362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Forum selection clauses are also

14

evaluated for fundamental fairness. To determine whether a forum selection clause is

15

fundamentally fair, and thus enforceable, courts consider the absence of a bad-faith motive,

16

the absence of fraud or overreaching, and notice of the forum provision. Carnival Cruise

17

Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991); Dempsey v. Norwegian Cruise Line, 972 F.2d

18

998, 999 (9th Cir.1992)).

19

In this case, Clause asserts that Defendants concealed an oppressive change of venue

20

clause in the Plan documents to cause participants, including Clause, to lack a judicial

21

remedy without obtaining counsel and engaging in litigation away from their home state.

22

However, information regarding the forum selection clause was not only included in the Plan,

23

Motion, Ex. A, § 9.20 (Doc. 16-1), it was also included in the Summary Plan Description

24

(“SPD”). After discussing administrative remedies, including an appeal of a denial of

25

benefits, the SPD discusses other recourses available to someone seeking to challenge a

26

denial of benefits. The SPD informs the reader he/she has right to bring a civil action under

27

Section 502(a) of ERISA, he/she may have other voluntary alternative dispute resolution

28

-4-

1

options, he/she may contact the U.S. Department of Labor office and your state insurance

2

regulatory agency for information as to options available, and he/she could contact the

3

Employee Benefits Security Administration (providing a contact number). The SPD then

4

states:

5
6

The Plan contains a forum selection clause, which requires that any action
relating to or arising under this Plan shall be brought in and resolved only in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and in any courts in
which appeals from that court are heard.

7
Motion, Ex. C, SPD, p. 22 (Doc. 16-3). Additionally, Defendants assert the SPD is posted
8
on the Carondelet Health Network benefits website, and participants are notified that an SPD
9
is available upon request at any time from the benefits department. The Court finds there is
10
no evidence of a bad-faith motive by Defendants, fraud or overreaching. Moreover, as the
11
clause is included in both the Plan and the SPD, the Court finds Plan and the SPD provided
12
sufficient notice of the forum selection clause. See e.g. Scharff v. Raytheon Co. Short Term
13

Disability Plan, 581 F.3d 899, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (there is no duty on plan administrators to

14
“inform participants separately of provisions already contained in the SPD”).
15
Here, the forum selection clause removes any uncertainty about where jurisdiction
16
lies, thus avoiding confusion regarding venue selection. Moreover, since it is arguably more
17
cost efficient for Defendants to litigate in Missouri, those savings could be passed along to
18
the Plan itself. See Cent. States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O’Brien
19
& Nye Cartage Co., No. 06-4988, 2007 WL 625430, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2007) (finding
20
that “[t]he purpose of including the venue selection clauses is obviously to allow for the
21
Trustees to better exercise efficient administration of the Funds by reducing cost associated
22
with litigating claims against multiple employers . . . .”). Additionally, lead counsel for
23
Defendants are located in Missouri. Clause argues, however, that the restrictive forum
24
selection clause would require her to litigate in a venue that is more than 1000 miles from her
25
home and most recent place of work and in a venue with which Clause has no connection.
26
Further, Clause asserts that her disability has already worked a substantial financial hardship
27
28

-5-

1

upon her and litigating in Missouri, where she cannot afford to travel to hearings, would

2

present an oppressive burden. Clause also asserts that she would be unable to have her

3

current counsel represent her and it would be burdensome to retain another attorney to

4

represent her in Missouri.5 In other words, Clause asserts that enforcement of the forum

5

selection clause would deprive her of her day in court. Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362

6

F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (refusing to enforce forum selection clause where party’s

7

substantial “physical and financial limitations” would preclude him from having “his day in

8

court”).

9

Initially, the Court notes that it is more than likely that neither Clause nor her attorney

10

would be required to travel to Missouri; ERISA cases are normally decided by cross-motions

11

and without the need for trial or discovery. See, e.g., Russell v. Comcast Corp., 381

12

Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, even if Clause could obtain discovery in this case,

13

any information that Clause could theoretically discover would likewise be located in

14

Missouri, making travel possible no matter where the case is litigated. Additionally, if a trial

15

were to occur, Clause could then seek a transfer of venue back to this district, based on her

16

inability to appear in Missouri. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (allowing the court to "transfer any civil

17

action to any other district or division where it might have been brought" "[f]or the

18

convenience of parties and witnesses" and "in the interest of justice"). See e.g. Rodriguez v.

19

PepsiCo Long Term Disability Plan, 716 F.Supp.2d 855, 862 (N.D.Cal. 2010). Further,

20

these factors address Clause’s personal interests, which the Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc.,

21

Court stated should not be considered. “Enforcement of the forum selection clause [] will

22

not deprive [Clause] of [her] day in court.” Rodriguez, 716 F.Supp.2d at 862.

23

Additionally, the record fails to establish that the enforcement of the forum selection

24

clause would “contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.”

25
5

27

Defendants point out that out-of-state counsel are regularly admitted pro hac vice to
litigate on behalf of their clients against the Plan without any need for local counsel and
without the need for physical appearances.

28

-6-

26

1
2
3
4
5

Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15. Rather, as another district court has stated:
Enforcement of the forum selection clause in this case, moreover, actually furthers
one of the purposes of ERISA by ‘bring[ing] a measure of uniformity in an area where
decisions under the same set of facts may differ’ as a result of geographic location.
. . . (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-533 (1973), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4639,
4650). The forum selection clause contained in [the] LTD Plan allows one federal
court to oversee the administration of the LTD Plan and gain special familiarity with
the LTD Plan Document, thereby furthering ERISA’s goal of establishing a uniform
administrative scheme.

6
Klotz v. Xerox Corp., 519 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Although Clause argues that
7
public policy requires fiduciaries to “discharge [their] duties with respect to a plan solely in
8
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” and “in accordance with the documents and
9
instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent
10
with the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter,” 29 U.S.C. §
11
1104(a)(1)(D), and the enforcement of the forum selection clause would violate that fiduciary
12
duty. The interests of all participants and beneficiaries are benefitted by bringing uniformity
13
to ERISA decisions.
14
Lastly, the Court does not find Clause’s argument that Boyd v. Grand Trunk W. R.
15
Co., 338 U.S. 263 (1949), and similar cases should govern the enforceability of forum
16
selection clauses in ERISA cases. Rather, Boyd did not involve a forum selection clause in
17
an ERISA case. The Court agrees with Defendants that, not only have the rules governing
18
the validity of forum selection clauses been relaxed, see 7 Williston on Contracts § 15:15
19
(4th ed.), but the venue statute in Boyd was mandatory, while the ERISA venue provision has
20
permissive language. Further, the federal governing statute has been broadened since Boyd.
21
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit was discussing an arbitration clause in a contract case in
22
Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 660 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2011), which is relied upon by
23
Clause. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “in the past, [it has] expressed skepticism
24
about the arbitrability of ERISA claims, see Amaro v. Cont'l Can Co., 724 F.2d 747, 750 (9th
25
Cir.1984), but those doubts seem to have been put to rest by the Supreme Court's opinions
26
in [Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987)] and [Rodriguez
27
28

-7-

1

de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 481 (1989)].” Comer v. Micor,

2

Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). As an arbitration clause is similar to a specialized

3

forum selection clause, Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan, 769 F.3d 922, 932 (6th Cir.

4

2014), it is difficult to conclude that Smallwood should govern in this case.

5

The Court finds Clause has failed to overcome the strong presumption in favor of

6

enforcing forum selection clauses. Further, Clause has not set forth any basis for which this

7

Court should schedule an evidentiary hearing, as requested by Clause, to determine whether

8

the forum selection clause was included in the Plan for a motive contrary to public policy.

9
10

Dismiss or Transfer

11

Because Clause would likely incur additional costs should this Court dismiss this case

12

rather than transfer venue, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss, but will grant the

13

Motion to Transfer Venue.

14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

15

1.

16
17

DENIED AS MOOT.
2.

18
19
20
21

The Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (Doc. 10) is

The Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (Doc. 15) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3.

The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

DATED this 15th day of January, 2016.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8-