Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01830/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01830-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

Christopher Komarnisky, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CIGNA Healthcare , 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-01830-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 12),

defendant's separate statement of facts (doc. 13), defendant's motion for summary disposition

(doc. 14), defendant's motion for permanent injunction under all writs act (doc. 15),

plaintiff’s response (doc. 16) and defendant’s reply (doc. 17). Plaintiff did not timely

respond to the motion for summary judgment. See LRCiv 56.1(d). 

This case arises out of plaintiff's claim for medical benefits under his patient's

employee benefit plan (the "Plan"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. Plaintiff originally filed a complaint in

the San Marcos Justice Court of the State of Arizona alleging that his patient is entitled to

receive full payment for 30 chiropractic visits per calendar year under the Plan. On August

29, 2012, defendant filed a notice of removal from the justice court to this court. Defendant

now moves for summary judgment, contending that it properly administered the Plan by

allowing the patient to receive 30 chiropractic treatments, but only paying for 15 after

Case 2:12-cv-01830-FJM Document 18 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

applying the patient's deductible to the first 15 treatments.

Because plaintiff is not a plan participant, beneficiary or fiduciary, or Secretary of

Labor, he does not have standing to file an action under ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).

Even if he did have standing, we would grant defendant's motion for summary judgment on

the merits of this action. The deductible plainly applies. Plaintiff’s position is groundless.

Defendant seeks an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin

plaintiff from filing future lawsuits challenging its health plan deductible in state or federal

court. Under the All Writs Act, this court may enter a restrictive pre-filing order against

vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. De Long v. Hennessey,

912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990). Such pre-filing orders, however, are an extreme

remedy that should be imposed only rarely. Id. at 1148. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s

actions are frivolous because he has filed numerous actions against insurers or claims

administrators which have been dismissed. While plaintiff’s actions come close to being

vexatious, we think an award of attorneys’ fees should be sufficient to deter him from future

filings. A pre-filing order is premature. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 12)

and defendant's motion for summary disposition (doc. 14).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion for permanent

injunction under the All Writs Act (doc. 15). 

The clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the defendant and against

plaintiff. Defendant may file a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees under Rule 54(d), Fed.

R. Civ. P. 

DATED this 19th day of April, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01830-FJM Document 18 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 2