Ennis-White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
2:23-cv-01863
D. Nev.Mar 14, 2024Background
- Rusty Ennis-White and Jonathon Ennis-White filed suit in Nevada state court against multiple defendants, including Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, alleging various torts and employment-related claims.
- Nationwide removed the case to federal court, arguing that claims against it arise from an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA and are subject to a mandatory forum selection clause requiring litigation in the Southern District of Ohio.
- Plaintiffs explicitly stated they were not seeking ERISA remedies but acknowledged their claims relate to Nationwide’s management of ERISA-governed benefits.
- Nationwide moved to sever and transfer claims against it to Ohio and remand the rest to state court.
- The remaining claims against other defendants were based solely on state law with no federal jurisdiction or diversity.
- The District of Nevada Court granted severance and transfer of Nationwide claims to Ohio, and remanded all other claims to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against Nationwide are subject to ERISA | Plaintiffs argued their claims are not ERISA claims and do not seek ERISA remedies. | Nationwide argues the claims relate to ERISA plans and are preempted. | Claims relate to ERISA plans and are subject to ERISA. |
| Enforceability of the Plan’s forum selection clause | Plaintiffs did not establish fraud or public policy concerns. | Nationwide says clause is valid and mandates Ohio venue. | Clause is enforceable; transfer to Ohio is required. |
| Severance and transfer of federal claims | Plaintiffs opposed severance and preferred remand. | Nationwide sought severance and transfer per §1404(a). | Severance and transfer of ERISA claims is mandatory. |
| Remand of remaining state law claims | Plaintiffs sought full remand to state court. | Nationwide opposed remand of its claims. | Remand granted for non-Nationwide claims only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (state law claims relating to ERISA plans are preempted by ERISA)
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (state law 'relates to' ERISA plan if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (valid forum selection clauses generally control absent exceptional circumstances)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable unless enforcement is unreasonable)