Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03247
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Judge Provinzino denied Ezequiel Rivera Jr.'s motions to disqualify the judge and to reconsider the earlier dismissal of his workplace-injury benefits lawsuit.
Pro se plaintiffs who file lawsuits with minimal factual allegations and voluminous exhibits, litigants who have filed multiple prior lawsuits on the same subject in different courts, and parties seeking judicial disqualification based on adverse rulings or critical judicial language.
What happened
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, No. 24-cv-3247, Ezequiel Rivera Jr. sued his former employer Nestle USA Inc., its insurer ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and claims manager Sedgwick Claims Management Services, alleging they conspired to deny him benefits after a workplace injury in violation of federal civil-rights, disability, and employee-benefits laws. The court had previously dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice on July 7, 2025, finding he failed to adequately allege an employee-benefits plan covered by federal law and that Minnesota was not the proper location to bring his civil-rights and disability claims. This was Rivera's fourth lawsuit raising similar issues across three different federal courts.
After the dismissal, Rivera filed two new motions: one asking the court to reconsider and reverse the dismissal (under a federal rule allowing correction of clear legal or factual mistakes), and one asking Judge Provinzino to remove herself from the case due to alleged bias. Rivera cited six grounds for disqualification, including claims that the judge used hostile language, showed procedural favoritism toward the defendants, improperly referenced his other lawsuits, and took too long to rule. On the reconsideration motion, Rivera raised at least 31 alleged errors, but the court found he was largely repeating arguments already considered and rejected, or raising issues unrelated to the actual reasons for dismissal.
Judge Provinzino denied both motions. On the disqualification motion, she found that none of Rivera's six arguments demonstrated that a reasonable person would question her impartiality — her language was accurate rather than biased, the defendants' attorneys had properly followed court rules for out-of-state lawyers, she had not relied on other courts' rulings improperly, she had not adopted defense talking points, she had in fact applied the more lenient standard owed to self-represented litigants, and the time taken to rule was reasonable given the complexity of the filings. On the reconsideration motion, she found Rivera was merely repeating earlier arguments or raising legally meritless and factually unsupported points, which is not a proper basis for that type of motion.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services · No. 0:24-cv-03247
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 19, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera Jr. is a self-represented (pro se) litigant who filed this lawsuit on August 12, 2024, against three defendants: Nestle USA Inc. (his former employer), ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance Company (insurer), and Sedgwick Claims Management Services (claims manager). Rivera alleged the defendants conspired to deny him benefits following a workplace injury, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, prohibiting disability discrimination), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, governing employee benefit plans).
This was Rivera's fourth federal lawsuit raising similar claims. His first suit, filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, ended when that court granted summary judgment (a ruling on the legal merits without a trial) to Nestle on February 21, 2025, and is currently on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A second Wisconsin suit was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (the court lacked authority to hear the case). A third suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was dismissed on initial screening.
Rivera's complaint in this case contained only four pages of actual allegations — primarily a list of seven causes of action with almost no supporting facts — accompanied by 365 pages of exhibits. ACE, Sedgwick, and Nestle each moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings. Rivera filed multiple counter-motions, including motions to strike Nestle's answer, a motion for sanctions, and a motion for default judgment, largely on the theory that Nestle's answer was filed by attorneys not admitted to practice in the District of Minnesota.
On July 7, 2025, the court dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice (meaning he is not barred from refiling), finding: (1) the ERISA claim failed because Rivera never alleged the existence of an ERISA-governed plan, and his request for pre-dismissal discovery to find such a plan was improper; and (2) Minnesota was not a proper venue (geographic location for a lawsuit) for his Title VII and ADA claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), the statute specifying where such suits may be filed. All of Rivera's other pending motions were denied as moot or without merit.
The Two Motions at Issue
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Rule 59(e))
The day after dismissal, Rivera filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a court to correct manifest (obvious and clear) errors of law or fact or to consider newly discovered evidence in the period immediately following judgment. Rivera identified at least 31 alleged errors and argued the court committed manifest errors of law, disregarded binding precedent, and failed to account for his pro se status.
Motion to Disqualify (28 U.S.C. § 455(a))
On July 16, 2025, Rivera moved to disqualify Judge Provinzino under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires a federal judge to disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Rivera also summarily sought disqualification of Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, but raised no specific arguments about Judge Elkins. Rivera sought sweeping relief: vacatur of the dismissal order, reinstatement of the complaint, default judgment, declaratory judgment, sanctions against defense counsel, $30 million in damages, and a jury trial.
On September 5, 2025, Rivera filed a notice of appeal from the July 7 dismissal. The court noted this did not strip it of jurisdiction to decide the Rule 59(e) motion, citing Eighth Circuit precedent.
Analysis: Disqualification Motion
The court addressed the disqualification motion first, reasoning it would be improper to rule on reconsideration without first deciding whether recusal was warranted. The standard under § 455(a) is whether impartiality might reasonably be questioned by an average person on the street who knows all the relevant facts. Judges are presumptively impartial, and Rivera bore the substantial burden of proving otherwise.
Appearance of bias
Rivera pointed to the court's use of the phrases "mountains of exhibits" and filing suit in another venue to "air his grievances" as evidence of judicial hostility. The court rejected this, noting the language accurately described Rivera's conduct, that pointed language does not by itself establish bias (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)), and that many other courts have used the same "mountains of exhibits" phrasing in similar contexts.
Procedural inequality
Rivera argued the court denied all his post-complaint motions without explanation while allegedly permitting Nestle to file through unadmitted attorneys. The court explained: (1) it was not required to provide detailed findings when denying motions, especially vexatious ones; and (2) Rivera's premise was factually wrong — Nestle's answer was signed by a Minnesota-licensed attorney already admitted to the court. Two Wisconsin-licensed co-counsel had marked their signatures "pro hac vice pending" (seeking temporary admission) and subsequently filed proper motions for admission that were both granted. No rule required that out-of-state attorneys obtain admission before an answer signed by admitted counsel was filed.
Improper commentary on pending cases
Rivera argued the court violated judicial conduct canons by referencing his ongoing Wisconsin appeal. The court explained it only noted the Wisconsin case to contextualize Rivera's litigation history, did not rely on it in reaching any conclusions, and that courts may take judicial notice (formal recognition) of judicial opinions and public records.
Improper acceptance of defense rhetoric
Rivera claimed the court adopted defense counsel's talking points. The court stated it never referenced the statements Rivera identified and dismissed his complaint for legal shortcomings, not for reasons traceable to defense arguments.
Failure to apply liberal standards
Rivera argued the court failed the pro se liberal pleading standard by (1) refusing to analyze his exhibits for factual claims, and (2) dismissing his ERISA claim even though he requested discovery to confirm a plan's existence. The court rejected both arguments. On the first, it noted it had in fact gone beyond the complaint to Rivera's responsive filings and exhibits — the court could not even determine Rivera had worked for Nestle from the complaint alone. On the second, the court explained that no plaintiff — including a pro se litigant — is entitled to discovery before a motion to dismiss; a plaintiff must first plead a plausible claim before becoming entitled to discovery.
Delay and inaction
Rivera argued the court took too long to rule. The court noted the last relevant motion was filed March 18, 2025, and the dismissal order issued July 7, 2025 — roughly four months. Given that the complaint contained almost no allegations and instead directed the court to 365 pages of exhibits, plus hundreds of additional pages from post-complaint motions, the court found the time reasonable. It cited Eighth Circuit precedent holding that even a two-year delay did not evidence bias.
The court also noted in a footnote that legal rulings themselves almost never constitute valid grounds for a bias motion, and that disagreement with the court's legal conclusions does not require recusal. The disqualification motion was denied.
Analysis: Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend
Rule 59(e) motions are limited to: (1) correcting manifest errors of law or fact; or (2) presenting newly discovered evidence. They cannot be used to introduce new legal theories, raise arguments that could have been raised earlier, or simply repeat arguments already rejected.
The court dismissed Rivera's complaint for two reasons — failure to plead an ERISA-governed plan and improper venue for Title VII and ADA claims — so only arguments relevant to those holdings were pertinent. The court found Rivera merely reiterated his earlier arguments that had already been considered and rejected. The remaining arguments were found either irrelevant to the actual bases for dismissal (e.g., spoliation evidence, which the court never reached because it dismissed on venue grounds before addressing the merits) or legally incorrect (e.g., entitlement to a hearing, which is discretionary under the local rules; and the claim that ACE's answer was untimely, which the court had already addressed and found incorrect). The Rule 59(e) motion was denied.
Disposition
Both motions — the Motion to Disqualify (ECF No. 104) and the Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (ECF No. 94) — were denied. The case remains dismissed without prejudice per the July 7, 2025 order, and Rivera's appeal to an unspecified circuit remains pending.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.