Wagoner et al v. State Industrial Products Corporation

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
Gary L Wagoner, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
State Industrial Products Corporation,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-01763-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is Defendant State Industrial Products Corporation’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Doc. 23), to which pro se Plaintiffs Gary L. Wagoner and Catalina
Seaward Trust responded (Doc. 25) and Defendant replied (Doc. 26). The Court finds this
matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion and dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint
with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs provided medical services to Vavrix D. Owens on November 10, 2018
(Doc. 1-1 at 3.) Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Owens was insured by Cigna, an insurance
provider owned by Defendant, that pre-authorized the services but denied the claim after
the services were performed. (Id.) On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff Wagoner sued Defendant in
Dreamy Draw Justice Court (“2022 Litigation”). (2:22-cv-01238-SPL, Doc. 1-1.)
Defendant removed the state court action to this District, asserting that the court had federal
question jurisdiction because Plaintiff Wagoner’s claims were completely preempted by
Case 2:25-cv-01763-JJT Document 27 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 6

- 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
ERISA. (2:22-cv-01238-SPL, Doc. 1.) After failing to respond to Defendant’s subsequent
motion to dismiss, the Honorable Judge Steven P. Logan dismissed Plaintiff Wagoner’s
claims on September 2, 2022 (“2022 Judgment”). (2:22-cv-01238-SPL, Doc. 9.)
Over two years later, Plaintiffs allegedly received letters from Defendant regarding
Plaintiffs’ request for information regarding Mr. Owens (“2025 Letters”). (Doc. 1-1 at 3.)
According to Plaintiffs, the 2025 Letters “stat[ed] [that Defendant] could not verify the
member’s eligibility and could not locate the account for Vavrix Owens, despite using a
full name, birthdate and ID number.” (Id.) Plaintiffs also spoke to a claim operator “who
confirmed that no record existed for the member.” (Id.) Plaintiffs proceeded to file an action
in Dreamy Draw Justice Court, asserting five state law claims arising from the same facts
underlying the 2022 Litigation with the addition of the 2025 Letters. (Id. at 2–4.) As before,
Defendant removed the action to this District on the basis that Plaintiffs’ state law claims
were completely preempted by ERISA. (Doc. 1.) Upon considering Plaintiffs’ ensuing
motion to remand the matter to state court (Doc. 5), the Court determined that each of
Plaintiffs’ claims were completely preempted by ERISA. (Doc. 15 at 7.) Defendant now
moves for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ instant action
is barred by claim preclusion. (Doc. 23 at 5–7.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “a party may move for judgment on
the pleadings” after the pleadings are closed “but early enough not to delay trial.” A motion
for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only if “the moving party clearly
establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved
and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard
Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). Judgment on the pleadings is also
proper when there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or the “absence of
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). In reviewing a Rule 12(c) motion, a court “must accept
all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable
Case 2:25-cv-01763-JJT Document 27 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 6

- 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
to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). Judgment
on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is warranted “only if it is clear that no relief could be
granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”
Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation
modified).
“The doctrine of res judicata is a judicially created rule which rests upon
considerations of economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of
certainty in legal relations.” Hooker v. Klein, 573 F.2d 1360, 1368 (9th Cir. 1978). “The
preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.”
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008). Under federal common law, there are two
forms of res judicata: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Id. at 892. When, as here, a
party asserts claim preclusion, “a final judgment forecloses successive litigation of the very
same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier
suit.” Id. (citation modified).
“Claim preclusion applies where the earlier suit (1) involved the same claim or cause
of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved
identical parties or privies.” Save the Bull Trout v. Williams, 51 F.4th 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.
2022). “The party seeking to invoke claim preclusion bears the burden of establishing these
elements.” Id. “A claim arising after the date of an earlier judgment is not barred, even if
it arises out of a continuing course of conduct that provided the basis for the earlier claim.”
Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A prior
judgment “cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist
and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case.” Lawlor v. Nat’l
Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 328 (1955). Nonetheless, a litigant “does not avoid the
bar of res judicata merely because he now alleges conduct [] not alleged in his prior suit,
nor because he has pleaded a new legal theory. Rather, the crucial question is whether
appellant has stated in the instant suit a cause of action different from those raised in his
first suit.” Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1982).
Case 2:25-cv-01763-JJT Document 27 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
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 Ninth Circuit test to determine whether two lawsuits involve the same cause of
action is as follows:
(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment
would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second
action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is
presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve
infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits
arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.
Harris v. Jacobs, 621 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1980). While “no single criterion can decide
every res judicata question,” the fourth criteria “is the most important.” Costantini, 681
F.2d at 1202 n.7.
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that claim preclusion bars this action because Plaintiffs’ claims
and the parties are the same as those involved in the 2022 Litigation, which culminated in
the final 2022 Judgment. (Doc. 23 at 6–7.) In response, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the
2022 Judgment was final on the merits, or that the two actions involve identical parties.
Rather, Plaintiffs only dispute that the claims are the same in light of the 2025 Letters,
which “post-date[] the 2022 dismissal and create[] new, independent causes of action for
misrepresentation and consumer fraud.” (Doc. 25 at 3.) Plaintiffs also argue that their state
law claims “rest on duties independent of any plan benefits,” so those claims are not
precluded. (Id. at 3–4.)
This Court already found Plaintiffs’ claims were completely preempted by ERISA
for removal purposes. (Doc. 15 at 3–7.) In reaching that decision, the Court found that the
instant matter and the 2022 Litigation are “based on the same set of operative facts, the
same coverage plan, and the same coverage denial.” (Doc. 15 at 2.) As a result of the
removal, “the state law claim is reconfigured as a federal ERISA cause of action under
§ 502(a),” and Plaintiffs’ state law claims are extinguished. Rudel v. Haw. Mgmt. All.
Ass’n, 937 F.3d 1262, 1269, 1277 (9th Cir. 2019).
The only factual difference between the two lawsuits is that Plaintiffs received the
Case 2:25-cv-01763-JJT Document 27 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
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
2025 Letters after the 2022 Judgment. The operative question, then, is whether the 2025
Letters give rise to a claim that did not exist in the 2022 Litigation. Lawlor, 349 U.S. at
328 (1955). They do not. Plaintiffs’ state law claims in the current and former litigations
were all converted into the same federal ERISA claim arising from the same plan and
benefits. In other words, Plaintiffs’ current ERISA claim existed in 2022, and he had the
opportunity to pursue that claim then. Plaintiffs’ current ERISA claim also turns on
substantially the same evidence as the former ERISA claim, involves the same purported
infringement of Plaintiffs’ right to benefits underlying the former ERISA claim, and arise
out of the same nucleus of facts as the former litigation. See Harris, 621 F.2d at 343. By
permitting this litigation to proceed, Defendant’s formerly adjudicated right not to pay the
plan benefits would surely be destroyed or impaired. Id. Plaintiffs’ ERISA claim in this
action is precluded by the 2022 Judgment.
“Courts have discretion in appropriate cases to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave
to amend, or to simply grant dismissal of the action instead of entry of judgment.” Special
Dist. Risk Mgmt. Auth. v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., 562 F. Supp. 3d 989, 994 (E.D.
Cal. 2021). “[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the
pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)).
There are no facts that would cure the defects of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, because any
claim Plaintiffs bring that is related to the payment of benefits from Mr. Owens’ plan is
completely preempted by ERISA, and any claim brought under ERISA is barred by claim
preclusion. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion and dismiss Plaintiffs’
Complaint with prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. 23).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1-1) with
prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-01763-JJT Document 27 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
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 FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this matter.
Dated this 31st day of December, 2025.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01763-JJT Document 27 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 6