Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. v. Schieffer, No. 12-1807 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDM&E and its president and CEO, defendant, entered into an Employment Agreement to encourage his retention following an anticipated change of control. When DM&E terminated defendant without cause and triggered the Employment Agreement's severance provision, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement. DM&E then filed this action in federal court to enjoin the arbitration. The court agreed with the district court that the benefits sought in defendant's arbitration demand were not claims for benefits due under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., plan. The court held that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to consider arbitrability, or any other issue arising under the Employment Agreement.
Court Description: Civil case - ERISA. For the court's prior decision in the matter, see Dakota, Minn. &E.R.R. v. Schieffer, 647 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2011). The district court did not err in finding that the benefits sought in Schieffer's arbitration demand were not claims for benefits under an ERISA plan; as a result, the district court lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to consider arbitrability or any other issue arising under the Employment Agreement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.