Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services
Ezequiel Rivera, Jr. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc.
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03247
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Judge Provinzino denied pro se plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera Jr.'s motion to reopen a dismissed employment-discrimination case based on a new Wisconsin workers' compensation ruling.
Pro se litigants who have already had federal cases dismissed and seek to reopen them using new administrative agency decisions as 'newly discovered evidence.' Also relevant to workers who bring employment discrimination and disability benefits claims across multiple jurisdictions.
What happened
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc. (Case No. 24-cv-3247), Ezequiel Rivera Jr. sued his former employer Nestle and related companies, claiming they conspired to deny him disability benefits after a workplace injury. He brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court had previously dismissed the case without prejudice in July 2025 — not because Rivera's claims lacked merit, but because Minnesota was the wrong court for the case and transferring it to Wisconsin made little sense since Rivera had already filed two similar federal lawsuits there, both of which had been dismissed.
Rivera then filed this motion asking the court to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a final judgment in certain exceptional circumstances. He argued that a July 2025 decision by the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission — which awarded him nearly $19,000 in wrongfully withheld disability benefits — was newly discovered evidence that strengthened his federal claims and justified either allowing him to file an amended complaint or transferring his case to a Wisconsin federal court.
Judge Provinzino denied the motion. The court explained that the Wisconsin commission's decision could not qualify as 'newly discovered evidence' under Rule 60(b)(2) because it did not exist at the time of the original dismissal. As for the broader 'extraordinary relief' standard under Rule 60(b)(6), the court found the commission's ruling irrelevant to the reasons the case was dismissed — it said nothing about ERISA coverage, and the Title VII and ADA claims were dismissed for improper venue, not lack of merit. The court also noted that Rivera had already made the same argument using the same Wisconsin commission ruling in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where it was denied the day before Rivera filed this motion, reinforcing the court's view that transferring the case would still result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services · No. 0:24-cv-03247
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Mar. 20, 2026
Background
Ezequiel Rivera Jr., proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed a complaint in August 2024 alleging that Nestle USA Inc. and related claims-management and insurance companies conspired to deny him disability benefits after he was injured while working for Nestle. He brought claims under three federal statutes: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting workplace discrimination and retaliation based on protected characteristics); (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (prohibiting disability-based discrimination); and (3) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (governing employer-sponsored benefit plans).
On July 7, 2025, the court dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice on two grounds. First, Rivera failed to adequately plead an ERISA claim because he did not allege he was covered by an 'employee benefit plan' as required by the statute. Second, the District of Minnesota was not a proper venue (the correct court location) for Rivera's Title VII and ADA claims under the applicable venue statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3); the proper venue was a federal court in Wisconsin. Rather than transferring the case, the court dismissed it without prejudice because Rivera had already filed two federal lawsuits in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on the same subject matter, both of which had been dismissed. Rivera had never requested a transfer; he had argued Minnesota was proper.
Rivera then moved to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and separately moved to disqualify the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Both motions were denied on September 19, 2025. Rivera also filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending as of the date of this order.
The Rule 60(b) Motion
On February 11, 2026, Rivera filed the present motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order under specific exceptional circumstances, including: subsection (2), newly discovered evidence that could not have been found in time despite reasonable diligence; and subsection (6), any other reason that justifies relief.
Rivera's basis for the motion was a July 15, 2025 decision by the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission (WLIRC) — a state administrative body — awarding him $18,737.95 in wrongfully withheld disability benefits. Rivera argued this decision was 'newly discovered evidence' strengthening his federal claims and asked the court either to let him file an amended complaint incorporating this evidence or to transfer his case to a federal court in Wisconsin.
The Court's Analysis
Jurisdiction to Rule Despite Pending Appeal
Rivera argued the pending appeal stripped the district court of authority to rule on his Rule 60(b) motion, and he asked for an 'indicative ruling' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 instead. The court rejected this framing, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that a district court may consider and deny a Rule 60(b) motion on the merits even while an appeal is pending. Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the court ruled on the motion directly.
Rule 60(b)(2) — Newly Discovered Evidence
The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(2) because that subsection permits consideration only of evidence that existed at the time of the original judgment but was unavailable despite diligent effort. Here, the WLIRC decision was issued on July 15, 2025 — after the court's July 7, 2025 dismissal order. Because the evidence did not exist at the time of judgment, it cannot constitute 'newly discovered evidence' under Rule 60(b)(2). The court noted Rivera himself appeared to acknowledge this point.
Rule 60(b)(6) — Any Other Reason Justifying Relief
Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all provision that applies only upon a showing of 'exceptional circumstances.' The court denied relief on three grounds:
ERISA claim
The WLIRC decision addressed only whether Rivera had reached maximum healing for his knee injury such that temporary disability benefits were properly withheld — it said nothing about whether Rivera was covered by an 'employee benefit plan' governed by ERISA. The WLIRC decision therefore has no bearing on the ERISA pleading deficiency that caused dismissal of that claim. Rivera did not meaningfully argue otherwise, and he acknowledged he might simply drop the ERISA claim in any amended complaint.
Title VII and ADA claims
The court had dismissed these claims not on the merits but because Minnesota was the wrong venue. The merits of those claims were never adjudicated. Rivera argued that the WLIRC decision strengthened his retaliation theories and that the case should now be transferred to Wisconsin rather than dismissed. The court disagreed.
Transfer to Wisconsin still pointless
The court explained that it had previously declined to transfer the case because Rivera already had two similar federal lawsuits pending and then dismissed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Critically, Rivera had already filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Rivera v. Nestle USA Inc., No. 23-cv-1431) making the identical argument — that the WLIRC decision materially strengthened his retaliation claims. The Wisconsin court denied that motion on February 10, 2026, stating that none of Rivera's new arguments changed the court's prior conclusion. Rivera filed the present motion in Minnesota the very next day, on February 11, 2026. The Seventh Circuit had also affirmed the Eastern District of Wisconsin's underlying dismissal of Rivera's similar Title VII claims on November 7, 2025. Given this record, the court found that transferring the case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin would simply result in dismissal there, making transfer unnecessary and unwarranted.
Disposition
The court denied Rivera's Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 118) and stated: 'This case is therefore over.'
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.