Summary
following Prudential and Transamerica in holding that an employer who was a plan sponsor could bring an action for declaratory judgment where the defendants could have brought a coercive action under ERISA
Summary of this case from Windstream Corp. v. LeeOpinion
Civil No. 03-2998 ADM/AJB
October 30, 2003
Timothy E. Branson, Esq., Dorsey Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, and James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Esq., and Nicole L. Gardner, Esq., Moore Van Alien PLLC, Charlotte, NC, appeared for and on behalf of Plaintiff
Mark W. Bay, Esq., Peterson, Engberg Peterson, Minneapolis, MN, and William T. Payne, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA, appeared for and on behalf of Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Motion to Enjoin a Parallel Proceeding [Docket No. 17], and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or In the Alternative to Transfer Venue [Docket No. 16], were heard before the undersigned United States District Judge on September 25, 2003. Plaintiff Rexam, Inc. ("Rexam" or "Plaintiff') seek to enjoin a parallel proceeding in the Northern District of Ohio that certain Defendants filed subsequent to Plaintiff filing this action in the District of Minnesota. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Defendants move to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to enjoin a Parallel Proceeding and denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or to Transfer Venue.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rexam is an aluminum beverage can manufacturer whose thousands of retirees reside in forty-eight states and in Puerto Rico. Approximately 100 retirees live in Minnesota. Reilly Aff. ¶ 5. Rexam has plants throughout the country, including a facility in St. Paul, Minnesota with approximately 115 employees. Rexam and its predecessors have provided medical and life insurance benefits to qualifying retirees in plans based on labor agreements created between Rexam and labor unions United Steel Workers of America ("USWA") and the International Association of Machinists Aerospace Workers ("IAM"). Reilly Aff. ¶¶ 4-7.
"USWA" refers collectively to both the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, and to Local 0188s.
In January 2002, Rexam changed the prescription drug benefit provisions of retirees' medical plans, raising out of pocket costs. USWA objected to the change and filed a series of grievances on behalf of retirees from December 2001 through April 2002. Id. ¶¶ 8-11, 14. Rexam and USWA representatives met in February 2002 and again in June 2002 but failed to resolve the issue. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13, 15. In August 2002, USWA's counsel sent Rexam a letter reiterating the discussions of the February meeting and suggesting that the USWA was contemplating legal action. Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 9. The parties continued to exchange information regarding the retirees' medical benefits plans until October 2002, but did not reach an agreement. Payne Aff. ¶ 6. While Rexam asserts its legal authority to amend benefits plans, USWA argues that any reduction in vested benefits violates both the individual plans and the underlying labor agreements. USWA claims further that the change to the plans is actionable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001-1046 ("ERISA"). As a violation of the labor agreements, USWA argues that the benefits change is also actionable under the section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").See 29 U.S.C. § 185; Compl. ¶¶ 24, 27 ofKieswetfaer v. Rexam. Inc., Case No. 3:03-CV-7225 ("Kieswether Complaint") (Humphrey Aff. Ex. A).
On May 1, 2003, Rexam filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [Docket No. 1] in the District of Minnesota. In an Amended Class Action Complaint filed on May 20, 2003 [Docket No. 3], Rexam asks the Court to determine whether Rexam may lawfully amend provisions in ERISA plans that provide retirees with medical benefits. 29 U.S.C.
§§ 1001-1046. Rexam also seeks a determination of whether amending such plans violates collective bargaining agreements under the LMRA § 301. 29 U.S.C. § 185. On May 8, 2003, Defendants USWA, Frank Kieswether and Larry Alford filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of Ohio raising the same issues as those in the instant Minnesota action. Payne Aff. ¶ 7.
While Rexam's Amended Complaint cites the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151-169 ("NLRA") as a basis for jurisdiction, the parties' briefs and oral arguments instead cite LMRA § 301. See 29 U.S.C. § 185. Because LMRA § 301 is the proper statute for determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists for some of Plaintiff s claims, the Court includes LMRA § 301 in its analysis when pertinent.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6).A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act
Defendants argue first that Plaintiff cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction for its ERISA claims. Plaintiff counters that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide its ERISA claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act (" DJ Act"). See 28 U.S.C. § 2201;see also Prudential Ins. Co. v. Doe. 76 F.3d 206, 210 (8th Cir. 1996).
The DJ Act is procedural only and does not, by itself, grant jurisdiction to the federal courts. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth. 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937). Rather, the DJ Act provides an additional remedy in cases where jurisdiction already exists based on diversity or federal issues, and where there is an actual controversy between the parties. See Id., at 239-241; see also Skelly Oil v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671-72 (1950). In determining whether subject matter jurisdiction is present, federal courts have "regularly taken original jurisdiction over declaratory judgment suits in which, if the declaratory judgment defendant brought a coercive action to enforce its rights, that suit would necessarily present a federal question." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust. 463 U.S. 1, 19 (1983). Following this principle, federal courts have held that the DJ Act provides federal question jurisdiction in cases where insurers seek declaratory relief regarding ERISA-governed policies, since insurance recipients could bring coercive actions under ERISA.Prudential 76 F.3d at 210; Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Digregorio. 811 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1987).
Defendants' argument concerning the Supreme Court's decision inTextron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div. v. United Automobile. Aerospace. Agricultural Implement Workers. 523 U.S. 653 (1998), does cast some doubt on this principle. See Id., at 559-560 n. 4. However, as the comments inTextron were merely dicta, Prudential is still controlling law in the Eighth Circuit. See Prudential 76 F.3d 206, 210.
Subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs ERISA claims is established by the DJ Act and Prudential See 28 U.S.C. § 2201;Prudential 76 F.3d at 210. Similar to the insurance recipient in Prudential the retirees here could and in fact have asserted a coercive action under ERISA in federal court. See Kieswether Compl. (Humphrey Aff. Ex. A); Payne Aff. ¶ 2. This is the same underlying coercive action addressed in Prudential one that "necessarily presents a federal question" as articulated in Franchise Tax Board. Franchise TaxBd., 463 U.S. at 19: Prudential 76 F.3d at 210. Therefore, Plaintiff has established subject matter jurisdiction for its ERISA claims.
Because subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiffs ERISA claims exists based on the DJ Act, the Court need not determine whether jurisdiction is independently created by ERISA itself.
B. Courts' discretion to dismiss declaratory judgment claims
Defendants' second argument is that the Court, in its discretion, should dismiss Plaintiffs claims even after finding that subject matter jurisdiction exists. District courts possess discretion in deciding whether and when to hear claims under the DJ Act "even when the suit otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites."Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 282 (1995). District courts are not obligated to assume jurisdiction of declaratory judgment actions and may stay or dismiss such claims in their discretion.Id at 288. In exercising this discretion, district courts weigh several factors. These include whether the declaratory judgment action was brought as a wrongful preemptive strike or as an attempt at forum shopping. See Verizon Communications. Inc. v. Inverizon Int'l. Inc. 295 F.3d 870, 874-75 (8th Cir. 2002); BASF Corp. v. Symingtoa 50 F.3d 555, 558 (8th Cir. 1995). Where there are two actions pending, a court should consider whether they involve the same parties and issues, if they raise questions of federal law, whether one is a parallel state proceeding, and when the actions were filed. See Wilton 515 U.S. at 282, 290;Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491, 494-95 (1942);Verizon Communications. Inc. 295 F.3d 873-74.
An analysis of these factors lead to a conclusion that dismissal is not warranted in this case. First, the record does not suggest that Rexam filed this action as an improper preemptive strike. The record shows Rexam initiated this proceeding in May 2003, several months after its final communication with Defendants regarding a possible lawsuit. A letter dated August 2002 was the last correspondence that directly referenced litigation. However, the letter does not state that litigation is imminent but invites Rexam to "amicably discuss" the health insurance rate changes. Reilly Aff. Ex. 9. Rexam sent Defendant USWA documents concerning retiree health benefits in October 2002, but it does not appear that the parties discussed litigation specifically at this time. Payne Aff. Ex. 1. Further, Rexam had previously given USWA these documents on several occasions. Reilly Aff. ¶ 18. Thus, this additional request would not have alerted Rexam of impending litigation. Even construing the October 2002 exchange as anticipating litigation, Rexam did not file a complaint until May 1, 2003 — several months later. While Defendants USWA and certain retirees filed the Ohio lawsuit only days after the Minnesota filing, there is no evidence suggesting that Rexam knew of Defendants' litigation strategy and rushed to file in Minnesota.
The record also shows that Rexam possessed a strong interest in initiating litigation beyond simply thwarting Defendants' choice of forum. Rexam desires clarification about its ability to amend healthcare plans since several retirees have filed individual grievances contesting reduced benefits. These proceedings have been repetitious and costly, and there is a likelihood of continued similar litigation. Reilly Aff. ¶¶ 11, 14. Additionally, because Rexam's legal authority to amend benefits plans is challenged, it must either maintain the status quo or face possible litigation from any changes. Plaintiff must also include a seventy-nine million dollar liability on its balance sheet for retiree benefits. In Plaintiffs view, this liability lowers its stock value and impairs its ability to obtain financing. Am. Compl. ¶ 31. Thus, the record does not support the argument that the case at bar is a "calculated maneuver" aimed at denying USWA and retirees, as "natural plaintiffs," their "traditional right to choose the forum and time of suit." See BASF. 50 F.3d at 557-558.
Similarly, there is little evidence that Plaintiff engaged in forum shopping by filing in Minnesota. While Plaintiff has offices in both Chicago and Charlotte, former retirees dwell in forty-eight states and in Puerto Rico, including over 100 retirees who live in Minnesota. Payne Aff. ¶ 8; Reilly Aff. ¶ 5. Given Plaintiffs contacts to fora throughout the country, there is no suggestion that filing suit in Minnesota is any more arbitrary than bringing suit in one of the other forty-seven states where retirees reside. Plaintiffs St. Paul, Minnesota plant that employs 115 people provides a second link to Minnesota. Reilly Aff. ¶ 4. Because Plaintiff s choice of forum, at least in part, is based on legitimate connections to Minnesota, this factor also favors retaining Plaintiffs declaratory judgment action in Minnesota.
Courts must consider additional factors when there are two actions pending. These include whether one suit is a parallel state proceeding, if the actions raise questions of federal law, if they involve the same parties and issues, and when the actions were filed. See Wiltoa 515 U.S. at 282, 290; Brillhart. 316 U.S. at 494-95; Verizon Communications. Inc. 295 F.3d at 873-74. Starting with factors one and two, courts have greater discretion to stay or dismiss declaratory judgment claims when there is a parallel state proceeding, or when there are no federal questions raised. See Wiltoa 515 U.S. at 290; Verizon. 295 F.3d at 873-75. Here, Defendants filed claims premised on ERISA and the LMRA in federal district court in Ohio. Because both lawsuits are in federal courts and raise federal questions, the Court has less discretion to dismiss Plaintiffs Minnesota lawsuit. Therefore, these factors weigh against dismissal.
The Court must next consider whether the Ohio and Minnesota lawsuits involve the same parties and legal issues. If the parties litigate the same questions in two federal jurisdictions, dismissal of one action may be warranted for reasons of judicial economy and practicality. See Wilton. 515 U.S. at 288; Verizon. 295 F.3d at 873. In this case, the Ohio and Minnesota actions both address the same issues-namely whether reductions in benefits violate retirees' health care plans and labor agreements. The two actions do not involve the same parties however, because Defendant LAM and its retirees are not plaintiffs in the Ohio case. See Kieswether Compl. (Humphrey Aff. Ex. A). Thus, this factor is essentially neutral and neither supports nor disfavors dismissal.
The last factor is when the two actions were filed. Because the parties filed nearly identical cases in different federal courts, the Court must include the first-filed rule in its analysis. When parties file substantially similar lawsuits in two venues, the first-filed rule gives priority to the venue chosen by the party who first establishes jurisdiction in order to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings. Northwest Airlines. Inc. v. American Airlines. Inc., 989 F.2d 1002, 1006-07 (8th Cir. 1993). The rule however, "yields to the interests of justice," and will not be applied where a court finds "`compelling circumstances' supporting its abrogation." Id. at 1006 (citations omitted). TheNorthwest court noted two red flags that may signal compelling circumstances. They include whether the plaintiff in the first action had notice that the defendant was considering filing suit, and whether the first-filed action seeks declaratory relief. Id. at 1007.
In the present case, Plaintiff Rexam filed its action in Minnesota seven days before Defendants filed their action in Ohio. Payne Aff. ¶ 7. Based on the first-filed rule, this fact weighs against dismissing the Minnesota action unless compelling circumstances dictate otherwise.
Both red flags highlighted in Northwest are present in this case. First, like the plaintiff in Northwest. Rexam had notice that Defendant USWA was considering litigation. Similar to the facts inNorthwest however, USWA and Rexam's correspondence did not suggest that litigation was imminent. Northwest Airlines. 989 F.2d at 1007; Reilly Aff. Ex. 9; see discussion supra p. 6. The record shows that Defendants mentioned litigation as a possibility, but preferred a non-litigious resolution. Reilly Aff. Ex. 9. Further, Rexam did not file suit until six months after the parties' last communication. While USWA filed its complaint in Ohio only seven days after the Minnesota suit was filed, unlike the six week gap between filings in Northwest, nothing in the record reveals that Rexam secretly learned of USWA's plans and consequently rushed to file first in Minnesota. Northwest Airlines. 989 F.2d at 1007; see discussion supra p. 6.
USWA and its retirees were undoubtedly preparing their complaint before Rexam filed, but this does not mean that Rexam knew of USWA's impending suit, as the parties had not communicated for six months. Payne Aff. ¶ 7. Rexam's actions here are markedly different from the plaintiffs in Anheuser-Bush. Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417 (8th Cir. 1999), where Anheuser, the plaintiff in the first-filed case, initiated a lawsuit eight days after receiving a cease and desist letter from the defendant that explicitly threatened litigation unless Anheuser responded in five days. Id. at 418-19. Therefore, that Rexam was on notice of possible litigation does not present a compelling circumstance in this case.
The second red flag raised in Northwest is also present here as Plaintiffs action is for declaratory judgment. Northwest Airlines. 989 F.2d at 1007. As expressed in Northwest, "such an action may be more indicative of a preemptive strike than a suit for damages or equitable relief." Id. Like the plaintiff inNorthwest however, Rexam has outlined several reasons why declaratory judgment is necessary in this case. See discussionsupra pp. 6-7. Rexam has faced a series of grievance proceedings since reducing retiree benefits and needs direction to assess if it risks liability for any current or future changes. Rexam also has financial concerns about providing benefits at their current level.Id. Thus, Rexam has not acted in bad faith or "raced to the courthouse" to preempt USWA's Ohio lawsuit. See Northwest Airlines. 989 F.2d at 1007.
The Northwest court considered other factors as well, such as whether the lawsuits raised the same issues, and whether one venue was a more convenient forum. The presence of the same issues in both cases favors applying the first-filed rule. Id. As noted on page 8 of this Order, the Minnesota and Ohio cases involve the same issues which favors adherence to the rule. See discussionsupra p. 8. The Order addresses the convenience of venue issueinfra pp. 13-14.
The factors outlined above disfavor dismissal of Plaintiff Rexam's declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff neither initiated litigation as an improper preemptive strike nor engaged in forum shopping. Additionally, there is no parallel state proceeding and the case raises federal questions. Finally, Plaintiff filed its action first, and there are no compelling circumstances present that warrant an exception to the first-filed rule. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will retain jurisdiction of Plaintiff s case.
C. Ripeness of the IAM Claims
Defendants' next argument is that Plaintiffs claims against the IAM class should be dismissed on ripeness grounds because IAM retirees have not lost any vested benefits. In order for a court to issue a declaratory judgment, the complaint must present an actual controversy within the meaning of the DJ Act. Lake Carriers' Ass'n. et al. v. MacMullian et al., 406 U.S. 498. 506 (1912). This means "there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." Id (quoting Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). Determining whether the complaint contains an abstract question or an actual controversy requires careful analysis of a case's particular facts, as the difference between the two is "necessarily one of degree." See Maryland Cas. Co., 312 U.S. at 273.
While there is not a precise test for deciding when a controversy exists, courts should examine "the fitness of the issues for judicial decision" and the "hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. Midamerican Energy Co., 234 F.3d 1032, 1038 (8th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). This analysis contains several factors including the following: (1) the hardship to the plaintiff by delaying review; (2) whether the plaintiffs claim is focused; (3) whether further factual development would benefit the court; and (4) whether the claim rests upon "contingent, future events that may or may not occur as anticipated." Texas v. United States et al., 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (holding that a claim is not ripe if based on contingent future events); Nat'1 Right to Life Political Action Comm. et al. v. Connor et al., 323 F.3d 684, 692-694 (8th Cir. 2003). Courts normally resist adjudicating disputes that are contingent in part on future events. There is an exception however, if the claim presents chiefly legal issues or where judicial resolution will largely settle the lawsuit. Midamerican. 234 F.3d at 1038.
The LAM claims are ripe based on the factors outlined above. Starting with the hardship prong, harm includes "the heightened uncertainty and resulting behavior modification that may result from delayed resolution."Id. Though LAM states that the current change to prescription drug benefits is permissible since it affects an optional feature in the LAM retirees' plan, LAM contests whether Plaintiff can freely alter vested benefits. McGarry Dec. ¶¶ 7, 10 (Payne Aff. Ex. 2); Humphrey Aff. of 8/21/03, Exs. 2-3. Further, several individual LAM retirees have complained that the change violates their rights. Evans Aff. Exs. 1-2; Werner Aff. ¶ 4. Even assuming that the current change complies with the LAM retirees' healthcare plan, Plaintiff is unsure whether it can legally amend other plan provisions. This in turn hinders Plaintiffs ability to effectively administer benefits programs. Plaintiff faces a second harm because it must maintain a seventy-nine million dollar liability on its balance sheet to cover retiree benefits. Plaintiff cannot lower this amount unless it reduces retirees' benefits, an action that LAM and its retirees would likely oppose. Am. Compl. ¶ 31; Humphrey Aff. of 8/21/03, Exs. 2-3.
The LAM claims also present issues fit for judicial review. Conceding that the claims may rest in part upon the assumption that Plaintiff will change plans in the future, other factors favor adjudication now. First, Plaintiffs claim is focused. Plaintiff straightforwardly asks the Court to determine whether it can amend retirees' healthcare plans. Am. Compl. at 18. Second, further factual development will not benefit the Court because this claim involves interpreting the language in the retirees' benefits plans, a question of law. The court in Midamerican faced the same issue, contract interpretation, and held that the plaintiffs claim was ripe even though the disputed contractual provisions would not take effect, if at all, until nearly three years later. 234 F.3d at 1039. The court reached this holding because the case presented chiefly legal issues that did not require additional factual development. Id. In the case at bar, the facts in their current form will sufficiently guide the Court in resolving Plaintiffs purely legal claim. Finally, like the Midamerican case, judicial resolution of this matter will "largely settle the parties' suit" because after adjudication Rexam will know whether it can amend plans. Id Because the issues presented are well posited for judicial decision, and because Plaintiff faces hardship from delayed review, the Court will adjudicate Plaintiffs IAM claims.
D. Transferring Venue to the Northern District of Ohio
In the alternative, Defendants move to transfer venue to Toledo in the Northern District of Ohio. Courts should transfer venue based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The analysis is not limited to these factors however, but requires a case-by-case evaluation of all relevant circumstances. See Terra Int'l. Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997). The party seeking transfer bears the burden of proving that a transfer is warranted, as courts normally defer to the plaintiffs choice of forum. Id. at 695.
In the present case, Defendants have not shown that Ohio is a superior forum. Beginning with the convenience to the parties, none of the parties is based in Toledo, Ohio. Plaintiff has offices in Chicago and Charlotte, but Minneapolis is easily accessible by air travel. Plaintiff states further that while Toldeo is actually closer to its offices based on mileage, traveling there is less convenient because there are fewer direct flights. Beirne Aff. ¶ 5. Defendant Unions are based in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh and can also readily fly to Minneapolis. Id ¶ 6. As Defendants would still be forced to travel hundreds of miles to litigate in Toledo, transferring venue will not be appreciably more convenient. Payne Aff. ¶ 8.
Defendants have also not illustrated that Ohio is a more convenient forum for the witnesses. Defendants do not name specific witnesses with any certainty, but suggest that they may call retirees who reside in Pittsburgh and Toledo. Id. ¶ 9. Given that retirees reside in forty-eight states and Puerto Rico, however, including over 100 who live in Minnesota, Defendants have not proven that Toledo is the more convenient venue.
The interests of justice likewise do not favor transferring venue to Toledo. As explained in detail above, Plaintiff did not file this action as an improper preemptive strike. Plaintiff instead has legitimate concerns about whether it can amend retiree benefit plans. Further, Plaintiff has multiple contacts with Minnesota which suggests that Plaintiffs choice to litigate here was premised on something more than flagrant forum shopping. Certain Defendants have filed a separate action in Ohio, but this was filed after Plaintiff brought its Minnesota claim. As explained above in the first-filed analysis, there are no compelling circumstances present that justify dismissing Plaintiffs claim. Transferring venue to the Northern District of Ohio, therefore, is not warranted based on the interests of justice. Because neither the convenience nor justice factors supports transfer, the Court denies Defendants' Motion.
E. Plaintiff's Motion to Enjoin the Parallel Proceeding in Ohio
The final issue presented is Plaintiffs Motion to enjoin the parallel Ohio action. Plaintiff asks the court to grant an injunction that will stop Defendants from proceeding with their subsequently filed lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio. Because the Minnesota and Ohio suits present the same factual and legal issues, the Court must apply the first-filed rule unless compelling circumstances dictate otherwise. Northwest Airlines. 989 F.2d at 1006-07. As discussed in detail above, no compelling circumstances justify an exception to the first-filed rule in this case. See discussionsupra pp. 8-10. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to enjoin the Ohio action.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Enjoin a Parallel Proceeding [Docket No. 17] is GRANTED, and
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or In the Alternative to Transfer Venue [Docket No. 16] is DENIED.