Hardwick v. Arion Care Solutions et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kimbaly Hardwick,
Plaintiff,
v.
Arion Care Solutions, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-02785-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Kimbaly Hardwick filed a complaint and an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The application is granted, which allows the court to determine
whether Hardwick has stated any claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). She has not.
Hardwick previously worked for defendant Arion Care Solutions. In February 2026,
Hardwick sued Arion, three Arion employees, and an attorney who had represented Arion.
CV-26-992-PHX-KML. The original complaint in that suit was dismissed for failure to
state a claim, as were the first and second amended complaints. When dismissing the
second amended complaint on April 9, 2026, the court directed entry of judgment in favor
of defendants. Judgment was entered the same day. Hardwick filed the present suit on April
22, 2026. (Doc. 1.)
The current complaint asserts claims based on events linked to Hardwick’s
employment with Arion. (Doc. 1 at 6.) Hardwick names as defendants Arion, the same
attorney named in her previous suit, and that attorney’s law firm. (Doc. 1 at 6.) There are
no allegations of events occurring after the dismissal of Hardwick’s earlier suit.
Case 2:26-cv-02785-KML Document 6 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The doctrine of claim preclusion “bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims
that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” Owens v. Kaiser Found.
Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (simplified). It applies “whenever
there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or
privity between parties.” Id. (simplified). The “identity of claims” requirement does not
mean the exact same claims must be presented in the two suits. Rather, “[t]he central
criterion in determining whether there is an identity of claims between the first and second
adjudications is whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.”
Id. (simplified).
Hardwick’s prior suit and the present suit are based on the same underlying facts
involving her employment with Arion and the subsequent legal proceedings involving
Arion’s counsel. The court entered a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit. See
Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (judgment based on failure to
state a claim is on the merits). And the only defendant that is different between the two
suits is the Cavanaugh Law Firm. That firm is named as a defendant in this suit but was
only mentioned in the previous suit. For purposes of Hardwick’s claims, the Cavanaugh
Law Firm is in privity with the attorney named as a defendant in the prior suit. To the extent
the court can understand Hardwick’s current complaint, she has named the law firm as a
defendant based exclusively on the same actions by the attorney she alleged in her previous
suit. In these circumstances, the interests of the firm and attorney are “closely aligned,” if
not substantially identical. F.T.C. v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2004). Res
judicata bars the present suit and there is no need to grant leave to amend.
/
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:26-cv-02785-KML Document 6 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE
TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close
this case.
Dated this 28th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02785-KML Document 6 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 3