Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05914-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REV. DANIELLE FEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF PENSIONS OF THE 

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN 

AMERICA, doing business as PORTICO 

BENEFIT SERVICES and EVANGELICAL 

LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICAN 

DISABILITY BENEFITS PLAN,

Defendants.

No. C 19-05914 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

TO TRANSFER VENUE

In this action to enforce non-ERISA disability benefits, the agreement contains a 

mandatory forum-selection clause, so the motion to transfer is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff Reverend Danielle Fey worked as a pastor and participated in the Lutheran 

Church’s group benefits plan. Defendant is the Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Church 

in America, doing business as Portico Benefit Services and Evangelical Lutheran Church in 

American Disability Benefits Plan. The agreement between Fey and the Board is a Church 

plan and thus not regulated by ERISA. After Fey became unable to work due to fibromyalgia 

and chronic fatigue, the Board terminated her benefits. Fey appealed the termination and 

underwent three levels of internal administrative review. The Board receives and considers all 

appeals of benefit termination claims at its office in Minnesota (Decl. of Catherine Brody at 2). 

Case 3:19-cv-05914-WHA Document 24 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Board reviewed and affirmed the termination each time. Fey then sued here, alleging 

breach of contract, bad faith, intentional inflection of emotional distress, and unlawful 

transaction of disability insurance. Defendant now moves to transfer the action to Minnesota. 

The motion to transfer was based upon the “Court System” provision found in the Plan 

document. The provision reads (Compl. at 67):

Section 10.04 Appeals Procedure: Court System: In the event 

an individual has exhausted the appeals procedure . . . and is 

dissatisfied with the final decision of the Appeals Committee of 

Portico Benefit Services, s/he may initiate legal action in the

Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County. Any 

removal of such action must be to the United States Court for the 

District of Minnesota (emphasis added). 

At the hearing, the Court on its own motion requested supplemental briefing on the

extent to which Plan documents specified that Minnesota law would apply, a point that no 

party had bothered to raise. 

When the supplemental briefing came in, the following additional provision identified in 

the Plan specified not only that Minnesota law would apply but also that all lawsuits shall be 

submitted in Minnesota (Compl. at 66): 

Section 10.03 Rules of Construction and Applicable Law:

The Disability Benefits Plan shall be construed and administered 

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 

America. All controversies, disputes, and claims arising hereunder 

shall be submitted to the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court, 

Hennepin County (emphasis added).

Forum-selection clauses are mandatory and enforceable when the language “clearly 

requir[es] exclusive jurisdiction.” Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 

77 (9th Cir. 1987). Our court of appeals identified exclusive and thus mandatory language in a 

comparable provision reading, “venue of any action brought hereunder shall be deemed to be 

in Gloucester County, Virginia.” Docksider Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 763 

(9th Cir. 1989). 

It is surprising that neither side identified this provision until the supplemental briefing. 

Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the Plan requires all controversies, disputes, and claims to be 

raised in Minnesota. Although the provision mandates filing suit in Minnesota state court, the 

Case 3:19-cv-05914-WHA Document 24 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

practical thing to do now is transfer to the District of Minnesota, inasmuch as the other cited 

provision requires cases brought in Minnesota to be removed to the United States District 

Court for the District of Minnesota. 

The Court is disappointed that counsel wasted their time (and the Court’s time) arguing 

over the permissive “Court System” provision, when there was a mandatory forum-selection 

provision on the page immediately prior in the materials. Much time was wasted.

For the aforementioned reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of 

Minnesota and CLOSE THE FILE here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-05914-WHA Document 24 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 3