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 plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera Jr.'s motions to disqualify the judge and to alter or amend the earlier judgment that dismissed his workplace injury benefits lawsuit, finding no evidence of bias and no valid grounds for reconsideration.
Self-represented (pro se) litigants who have filed multiple lawsuits raising similar claims, parties seeking judicial disqualification based on adverse rulings or judicial tone, and plaintiffs seeking reconsideration of dismissal orders under Rule 59(e). Also relevant to employees alleging workplace injury benefit denials involving Title VII, ADA, and ERISA claims.
What happened
Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services is the fourth lawsuit Ezequiel Rivera Jr. has filed against his former employer Nestle USA Inc. and related insurance and claims-management companies, alleging they conspired to deny him benefits after a workplace injury in violation of federal civil rights, disability, and employee benefits laws. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in August 2024. On July 7, 2025, the court dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice — meaning he is not permanently barred from refiling — because he failed to adequately state a legal claim: his employee benefits claim lacked allegations that an employer-sponsored benefits plan even existed, and his civil rights and disability claims were filed in the wrong court location (venue).
After that dismissal, Rivera filed two new motions. The first asked Judge Provinzino to disqualify herself, citing six alleged grounds: apparent bias against him as a self-represented litigant, unequal procedural treatment, improper references to his other pending case, adopting defense lawyers' arguments, failing to apply lenient pleading rules for self-represented parties, and unreasonable delay. The second motion asked the court to reconsider and change its earlier judgment, identifying at least 31 alleged errors in the dismissal order.
Judge Provinzino denied both motions. On disqualification, she found that none of Rivera's six arguments raised a reasonable question about her impartiality: her word choices were accurate rather than biased, her rulings on Rivera's procedural motions were legally correct, referencing Rivera's prior cases was proper context-setting, she did not adopt defense talking points, she actually went beyond Rivera's sparse complaint to consider his exhibits and other filings, and the time taken to rule was reasonable given the volume of materials. On reconsideration, the court found that Rivera merely repeated arguments already rejected, raised issues unrelated to the actual grounds for dismissal, or made factually incorrect claims — none of which qualifies as the kind of clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence required to change a judgment under the applicable rule (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).
The detailed version
CASE: Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, No. 24-cv-3247 (LMP/SGE), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. JUDGE: Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge. DATE: September 19, 2025.
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera Jr., proceeding pro se (representing himself without an attorney), filed this lawsuit in August 2024 against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc., alleging a conspiracy to deny him benefits following a workplace injury. He asserted claims under 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 in employment), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, governing employer-sponsored benefit plans). This was Rivera's fourth lawsuit raising similar claims — prior suits were filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (twice) and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all dismissed or decided against him.
Rivera's complaint was sparse — four pages of allegations, mostly a list of causes of action with few supporting facts — but he attached 365 pages of exhibits. On July 7, 2025, Judge Provinzino dismissed the complaint without prejudice (allowing potential refiling), holding: (1) the ERISA claim failed because Rivera never alleged that an ERISA-governed benefits plan existed, and a request for discovery to find such a plan was not a substitute for a plausible pleading; (2) the Title VII and ADA claims were filed in the wrong venue — the District of Minnesota was not a proper venue under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because the allegedly discriminatory events occurred in Wisconsin. The court also denied all of Rivera's other pending motions (to strike Nestle's answer, for sanctions, for default judgment, and for leave to file a sur-reply) as moot or meritless.
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)): Federal law requires a judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The standard is whether an average informed person would question her impartiality. Rivera raised six grounds:
1. Appearance of bias: Rivera claimed the court's use of phrases like 'mountains of exhibits' and describing his suit as an attempt to find 'another venue to air his grievances' showed judicial hostility. The court found these phrases accurate and commonly used by other courts, and noted that expressions of impatience or pointed language do not establish bias under Supreme Court precedent (Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)).
2. Procedural inequality: Rivera argued the court denied his motions without explanation while permitting Nestle to file an answer through attorneys not yet formally admitted to the district. The court clarified that Nestle's answer was signed by a Minnesota-licensed attorney properly admitted at the time of filing; two Wisconsin attorneys signed with 'pro hac vice pending' notation and promptly filed proper admission motions that were granted. Local Rule 83.5 was followed. The court further explained it was not required to write detailed findings when denying Rivera's motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(3).
3. Improper commentary on pending cases: Rivera claimed the court improperly referenced his ongoing Wisconsin appeal. The court stated it mentioned prior litigation only for contextual background and noted that courts may take judicial notice of public records and judicial opinions.
4. Adopting defense rhetoric: Rivera argued the court adopted defense counsel's arguments without independent analysis. The court stated it never referenced the specific statements Rivera identified and dismissed on legal grounds, not based on defense characterizations of Rivera.
5. Failure to apply liberal pro se standards: Rivera alleged the court refused to analyze his exhibits and wrongly dismissed his ERISA claim without allowing discovery. The court responded that it in fact went beyond the complaint to review exhibits and other filings in Rivera's favor, and that no plaintiff — including a pro se litigant — is entitled to discovery before surviving a motion to dismiss; a plausible claim must be pleaded first.
6. 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 ruling came July 7, 2025 — a period it characterized as reasonable given the volume of materials including 365 exhibit pages and hundreds more pages from other filings. Citing circuit precedent, the court held that even longer delays do not evidence bias.
The court denied the disqualification motion, also briefly noting that Rivera sought disqualification of Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins but made no specific argument against her.
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)): Rule 59(e) allows a court to correct its own mistakes shortly after entry of judgment, but only to fix clear errors of law or fact or to consider newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to re-argue previously rejected positions, introduce new legal theories, or raise arguments that could have been made before judgment.
Rivera identified at least 31 alleged errors. The court found that his arguments fell into three categories, none sufficient for Rule 59(e) relief: (1) mere repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the dismissal order; (2) arguments irrelevant to the actual grounds for dismissal — for example, claiming he submitted 'spoliation' evidence was beside the point since the Title VII and ADA claims were dismissed for wrong venue, not on the merits; and (3) factually incorrect arguments — for example, his claim that ACE's answer was untimely was wrong, as the court had already explained when denying his default judgment motion. The court also rejected Rivera's argument that he was entitled to a hearing on dispositive motions, noting that decision is within the court's discretion under Local Rule 7.1(c)(5).
The Rule 59(e) motion was denied.
PROCEDURAL NOTE ON APPEAL: Rivera filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2025, from the July 7 dismissal order while his Rule 59(e) motion remained pending. The court noted this was proper and did not strip it of jurisdiction to rule on the Rule 59(e) motion, citing Eighth Circuit precedent.
OUTCOME: Both motions denied. The underlying dismissal without prejudice (from July 7, 2025) remains in effect.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.