Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00338/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00338-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICKI CAPRIO and DUANE A. BARBAROTTO

as decedent Nicholas J. Barbarotto's

Successors in Interest,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY dba

THE HARTFORD and HARTFORD LIFE AND

ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 08-338 CW

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Defendants Hartford Life Insurance Company and Hartford Life

and Accident Insurance Company move to dismiss the complaint filed

against them by Plaintiffs Vicki Caprio and Duane A. Barbarotto. 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The matter was taken under

submission on the papers. Having considered all of the papers

filed by the parties, the Court grants Defendants' motion to

dismiss with leave to amend. 

Case 4:08-cv-00338-CW Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this case,

alleging that they are Nicholas Barbarotto's (Nicholas) successors

in interest and bring their claims on that basis. Plaintiffs

allege that Defendants issued an accidental death policy covering

Nicholas and his wife Tamara Barbarotto (Tamara) and a separate

accidental death policy covering only Tamara. Tamara was injured

in an accident on July 2, 2002 and died as a result of those

injuries on October 19, 2002. Plaintiffs allege that Nicholas

filed timely claims under the policies but Defendants "failed to

conduct a reasonable investigation and acted unreasonably,

arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the claims." Complaint 

¶ 16. Based on those allegations, Plaintiffs bring claims for

breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair

dealing and violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act (ERISA).

DISCUSSION

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits the re-litigation

of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior

action. Western Radio Servs. Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189,

1192 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v.

Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981)). The purpose of the doctrine is

to “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple law suits,

conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent

decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Marin v. HEW,

Health Care Financing Agency, 769 F.2d 590, 594 (9th Cir. 1985)

(quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)). Res judicata

Case 4:08-cv-00338-CW Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

operates where there is “1) an identity of claims, 2) a final

judgment on the merits, and 3) identity or privity between

parties.” Western Radio, 123 F.3d at 1192 (citing Blonder-Tongue

Lab. v. University of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 323-324 (1971)). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims are barred based on

the doctrine of res judicata because a suit based on the same

insurance claims was filed in this District naming Nicholas as

plaintiff on February 22, 2006 (Nicholas Barbarotto v. Hartford

Life Insurance Company, C 06-1278 CRB). This case was filed by

counsel for Plaintiffs in the present case. On October 19, 2006,

Judge Breyer entered an order pursuant to the parties' stipulation

dismissing the 2006 suit with prejudice. Plaintiffs do not dispute

that the 2006 suit and this suit involve the same insurance claims. 

Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the 2006 suit is a judicial nullity

because it was filed after Nicholas died on February 14, 2006. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs argue, the dismissal of the 2006 suit is not

a valid judgment for purposes of res judicata. 

In Banakus v. United Aircraft Corporation, 290 F. Supp. 259

(S.D.N.Y. 1968), the plaintiff was injured in an airplane crash. 

Approximately half-an-hour before his attorney filed the complaint

in the action, the plaintiff died. Plaintiff's wife, as

administrator of his estate, filed a motion to amend the complaint

to add a claim for wrongful death and to substitute herself as

plaintiff. The New York court found that, because the plaintiff

was dead when the action was filed, "it must be treated as a

nullity and it cannot be given life by substituting parties and

amending the complaint." Id. at 260. Therefore, the court denied

Case 4:08-cv-00338-CW Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

plaintiff's wife's motion without prejudice to her filing a

wrongful death action. 

Defendants argue that Banakus is distinguishable because

Plaintiffs did not attempt to substitute themselves as plaintiffs

in the 2006 suit. However, the Banakus court did not allow the

plaintiff's wife to substitute herself as the plaintiff. 

Defendants also argue that Banakus is distinguishable because

"plaintiffs have brought an identical action as successors in

interest, and seek no new claims for relief." Reply at 4. 

However, Plaintiffs' complaint includes a claim under ERISA, which

the 2006 suit did not. Moreover, Banakus is not binding authority

on this Court and it is not clear that the addition of a new claim

for relief was a key factor in the Banakus court's decision.

Defendants also cite Esposito v. United States, 368 F.3d 1271

(10th Cir. 2004), in support of their argument that the 2006 suit

was not a nullity. In Esposito, the Tenth Circuit reversed the

district court's dismissal of a wrongful death claim, which was

mistakenly filed with the decedent as plaintiff, and its denial of

the decedent's wife's motion to substitute as plaintiff. Both

Esposito and Banakus permitted the decedent's representatives to

pursue the decedent's claims. 

Nonetheless, as Defendants argue, the three elements of res

judicata are met in this case. Plaintiffs seek to bring claims

identical to those dismissed with prejudice in the 2006 litigation. 

Moreover, there is privity between Nicholas and Plaintiffs, acting

as his successors in interest. See Headwaters Inc. v. United 

Case 4:08-cv-00338-CW Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

States Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (privity

exists between individuals and their successors in interest). Res

judicata is not a discretionary doctrine. See Southern Ry. Co. v.

Clift, 260 U.S. 316, 319 (1922) (noting that res judicata

"supersedes [discretion] and compels judgment"). Although the 2006

suit did not include an ERISA claim, the ERISA claim in this case

is also barred by res judicata because it could have been brought

in the 2006 suit. 

If Plaintiffs wish to pursue these claims, they must seek a

judicial determination that the judgment entered in the 2006 suit

is void because the case was a nullity when filed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion

to dismiss (Docket No. 3), and grants Plaintiffs leave to amend. 

If Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint in this case, they

shall within ten days of the date of this order file in the 2006

suit a motion to void the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b). Plaintiffs shall include in their motion

facts related to Nicholas's death and the subsequent filing of the

lawsuit in his name. In the interest of judicial economy,

Plaintiffs shall also file a notice of related cases suggesting

that Judge Breyer re-assign the 2006 suit to this Court. If the

2006 case is dismissed as a nullity, Plaintiffs may within ten days

thereafter file an amended complaint in this case alleging that the

2006 case has been voided. In that event, they shall contact the

clerk for a case management conference date. Otherwise, the 

Case 4:08-cv-00338-CW Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

dismissal of this complaint will stand. The case management

conference currently scheduled for April 22, 2008 is hereby

vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/15/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00338-CW Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 6 of 6