# Fey v. Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America > District Court, N.D. California · February 14, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063102 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** February 14, 2020 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063102 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 REV. DANIELLE FEY, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 19-05914 WHA 12 v. 13 BOARD OF PENSIONS OF THE ORDER GRANTING EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN DEFENDANT'S MOTION 14 AMERICA, doing business as PORTICO TO TRANSFER VENUE BENEFIT SERVICES and EVANGELICAL 15 LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICAN DISABILITY BENEFITS PLAN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 In this action to enforce non-ERISA disability benefits, the agreement contains a 19 mandatory forum-selection clause, so the motion to transfer is GRANTED. 20 Plaintiff Reverend Danielle Fey worked as a pastor and participated in the Lutheran 21 Church’s group benefits plan. Defendant is the Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Church 22 in America, doing business as Portico Benefit Services and Evangelical Lutheran Church in 23 American Disability Benefits Plan. The agreement between Fey and the Board is a Church 24 plan and thus not regulated by ERISA. After Fey became unable to work due to fibromyalgia 25 and chronic fatigue, the Board terminated her benefits. Fey appealed the termination and 26 underwent three levels of internal administrative review. The Board receives and considers all 27 appeals of benefit termination claims at its office in Minnesota (Decl. of Catherine Brody at 2). 1 The Board reviewed and affirmed the termination each time. Fey then sued here, alleging 2 breach of contract, bad faith, intentional inflection of emotional distress, and unlawful 3 transaction of disability insurance. Defendant now moves to transfer the action to Minnesota. 4 The motion to transfer was based upon the “Court System” provision found in the Plan 5 document. The provision reads (Compl. at 67): 6 Section 10.04 Appeals Procedure: Court System: In the event an individual has exhausted the appeals procedure . . . and is 7 dissatisfied with the final decision of the Appeals Committee of Portico Benefit Services, s/he may initiate legal action in the 8 Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County. Any removal of such action must be to the United States Court for the 9 District of Minnesota (emphasis added). 10 At the hearing, the Court on its own motion requested supplemental briefing on the 11 extent to which Plan documents specified that Minnesota law would apply, a point that no 12 party had bothered to raise. 13 When the supplemental briefing came in, the following additional provision identified in 14 the Plan specified not only that Minnesota law would apply but also that all lawsuits shall be 15 submitted in Minnesota (Compl. at 66): 16 Section 10.03 Rules of Construction and Applicable Law: The Disability Benefits Plan shall be construed and administered 17 according to the laws of the State of Minnesota to the extent that such laws are not preempted by the laws of the United States of 18 America. All controversies, disputes, and claims arising hereunder shall be submitted to the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court, 19 Hennepin County (emphasis added). 20 Forum-selection clauses are mandatory and enforceable when the language “clearly 21 requir[es] exclusive jurisdiction.” Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 22 77 (9th Cir. 1987). Our court of appeals identified exclusive and thus mandatory language in a 23 comparable provision reading, “venue of any action brought hereunder shall be deemed to be 24 in Gloucester County, Virginia.” Docksider Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 763 25 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 It is surprising that neither side identified this provision until the supplemental briefing. 27 Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the Plan requires all controversies, disputes, and claims to be 1 practical thing to do now is transfer to the District of Minnesota, inasmuch as the other cited 2 provision requires cases brought in Minnesota to be removed to the United States District 3 Court for the District of Minnesota. 4 The Court is disappointed that counsel wasted their time (and the Court’s time) arguing 5 over the permissive “Court System” provision, when there was a mandatory forum-selection 6 provision on the page immediately prior in the materials. Much time was wasted. 7 For the aforementioned reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. 8 The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of 9 Minnesota and CLOSE THE FILE here. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 14, 2020. We Pee = ~~ UF WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 it 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063102. Public record. Not legal advice.