Mario Bonilla v. American General Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-05203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIO BONILLA, Case No. 25-cv-05203-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 9 v. FOR JUDGEMNT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 9 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Mario Bonilla brings this complaint against Defendant American General Life 13 Insurance Company (“American General”) alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and breach of 14 contract. [Docket No. 1-2 (Compl.).] American General now moves for judgment on the 15 pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). [Docket No. 9 (Mot.).] 16 This matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the 17 following reasons, American General’s motion is GRANTED. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 A. Factual Background 20 The following allegations in the complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the 21 motion.1 Plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who was born in Colombia. 22 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 8. On July 22, 2020, Plaintiff applied for a life insurance policy with American 23 General in the amount of $100,000. Id. ¶ 7. During the initial telephone interview with American 24 25 1 “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is ‘substantially identical’ to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, 26 under both rules, ‘a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 27 2012) (quoting Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc., No. C 10–04341 CRB, 2011 WL 6140912, at *3 (N.D. 1 General Agent Brenda Pelayo, Plaintiff disclosed that he was born in Colombia and had misplaced 2 his permanent resident card (green card), but was in the process of obtaining a replacement. Id. ¶ 3 8. Plaintiff asked if alternative documentation would be acceptable to prove his lawful permanent 4 resident status if his replacement green card did not arrive in time, and Agent Pelayo confirmed 5 that it would be. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff’s girlfriend, Deborah Stevenson, who is not of Colombian 6 origin, also applied for an identical life insurance policy through Agent Pelayo at the same time. 7 Id. ¶ 11. 8 On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff was informed by Agent Pelayo that his insurance 9 application had been denied due to a positive test result for Hepatitis C. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff had 10 never been diagnosed with Hepatitis C, and on November 12, 2020, obtained lab test results from 11 his physician at Marin Community Clinics which showed that Plaintiff did not have Hepatitis C. 12 Id. ¶¶ 13-15. Plaintiff submitted the lab results to American General for reconsideration of his 13 application. Id. ¶ 16. On December 15, 2020 and January 4, 2021, Plaintiff received additional 14 inquiries from American General, including a request for Plaintiff’s physician’s office notes and 15 questions about a doctor’s appointment that Plaintiff had never attended. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. American 16 General also requested a copy of Plaintiff’s green card. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff explained that his green 17 card was still being replaced, and he sent alternative documentation to American General to verify 18 his lawful permanent resident status. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff received a 19 voicemail from Agent Pelayo which stated: “Your green card is going to expire in six months, if 20 so, American General cannot accept your application, if not true, call me back.” Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff 21 attempted to contact Agent Pelayo through voicemail and email to clarify that his permanent 22 resident status was not expiring; he was only replacing his physical card. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff did 23 not receive a response. Id. ¶ 26. On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff sent a written notice to American 24 General that he was canceling his application due to lost faith and trust in the company. Id. 25 On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Department of Insurance 26 (CDI) regarding American General’s handling of his application. Id. ¶ 27. On June 10, 2021, in 27 response to the CDI investigation, American General claimed that Plaintiff’s application was 1 at least 6 months remaining on it,” even though such requirement was never communicated to 2 Plaintiff before his application was denied and was not stated in the written application materials. 3 Id. ¶ 28. American General also claimed that it had sent Plaintiff a denial letter on January 8, 4 2021, but Plaintiff never received this letter. Id. ¶ 30. On August 13, 2021, American General 5 provided a different explanation to the CDI, now claiming that Plaintiff’s lab tests were 6 insufficient because they lacked a specific Hepatitis C antibody test—despite Plaintiff having 7 submitted antibody tests to American General. Id. ¶ 31. On September 28, 2021, American 8 General “definitively reject[ed]” both Plaintiff’s lab work and USCIS documentation. Id. ¶ 32. 9 As of May 2021, Plaintiff’s Medical Information Bureau report still showed inaccurately that he 10 had abnormal Hepatitis C lab results, potentially affecting Plaintiff’s ability to obtain insurance 11 from other companies. Id. ¶ 35. 12 Plaintiff’s girlfriend was approved for the American General life insurance policy without 13 issue. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against “based on Plaintiff’s national 14 origin (Colombian).” Id. ¶ 34. 15 B. Procedural History 16 Plaintiff initially brought the case in state court on May 5, 2025, alleging two claims. His 17 first claim is for “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (National Origin Discrimination),” alleging 18 discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of his status as a lawful permanent resident from 19 Colombia in the making and enforcement of his insurance contract. Compl. ¶ 46. His second 20 claim is for breach of contract, alleging that he entered into a “valid and enforceable contract for 21 life insurance on or about August 20, 2020, when Plaintiff completed and submitted his 22 application and American General began the underwriting process.” Id. ¶ 55. 23 American General removed the case to federal court on June 20, 2025 and subsequently 24 filed an answer. [Docket Nos. 1 (Removal Notice); 5 (Answer).] On July 7, 2025, American 25 General filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff failed to meet his deadline to 26 oppose or file a non-opposition to the motion. [Docket No. 10.] The court issued two orders to 27 show cause, and Plaintiff twice failed to provide a satisfactory response to the orders to show 1 for failure to respond to the court’s second order to show cause. [Docket No. 14.] 2 Plaintiff later filed a motion to set aside dismissal, which the court ultimately granted on 3 September 29, 2025. [Docket No. 25.] Pursuant to court order, American General’s motion for 4 judgment on the pleadings was deemed submitted on September 29, 2025. Plaintiff filed an 5 opposition. [Docket No. 30 (Opp’n).] American General filed a reply. [Docket No. 31 (Reply).] 6 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 7 “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for 8 judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is properly 9 granted when, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, there is no issue of 10 material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Chavez 11 v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The court must construe all factual 12 allegations “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 13 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). 14 “Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and . . . the same standard of review 15 applies to motions brought under either rule.” U.S. ex. rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 16 Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the court “must assess whether the 17 complaint ‘contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 18 plausible on its face.’” Chavez, 683 F.3d at 1108 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 19 (2009)). “Mere conclusory statements in a complaint and ‘formulaic recitations of the elements of 20 a cause of action’ are not sufficient.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 21 (2007)). 22 “Although Rule 12(c) does not mention leave to amend, courts have the discretion in 23 appropriate cases to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave to amend, or to simply grant dismissal of 24 the action instead of entry of judgment.” Barone v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, No. 3:23-CV-00858- 25 WHO, 2024 WL 333887, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2024) (quoting Cagle v. C & S Wholesale 26 Grocers Inc., 505 B.R. 534, 538 (E.D. Cal. 2014)). “Indeed, granting a Rule 12(c) motion and 27 ‘[d]ismiss[ing] with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear . . . 1 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012)). 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 A. Breach of Contract 4 The court first addresses the parties’ breach of contract arguments, as it affects the court’s 5 section 1981 analysis. American General argues that no breach occurred because no contract with 6 Plaintiff was ever formed since Plaintiff merely applied for an insurance policy. Mot. 16. In 7 anticipation of American General’s argument, Plaintiff’s complaint cites Smith v. Westland Life 8 Ins. Co., 15 Cal. 3d 111 (1975) for the proposition that submission of an insurance application is 9 sufficient to establish a contractual relationship until the insurer “both communicates notice of 10 rejection and refunds any premium payment to the applicant.” Compl. ¶ 56. In opposition to the 11 12(c) motion, Plaintiff further argues that American General’s letters to Plaintiff referred to a 12 “policy number” and “coverage concepts like a ‘Limited Temporary Life Insurance Agreement,’” 13 suggesting there was a contractual relationship between Plaintiff and American General. Opp’n 5. 14 Plaintiff attached additional evidence to his opposition, including his declaration and eight 15 exhibits. [Docket Nos. 30-1 (Mario Bonilla Decl., Oct. 14, 2025); 30-2 (Bonilla Decl. Exhibits).] 16 “Under California law, a contract of temporary insurance may arise from completion of an 17 application for insurance and payment of the first premium, if the language of the application 18 would lead an ordinary layperson to conclude that coverage was immediate.” State Farm Mut. 19 Auto. Ins. Co. v. Khoe, 884 F.2d 401, 405 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has not alleged that he paid 20 any premium, nor has he alleged that the language of the American General application would 21 lead an ordinary layperson to conclude that coverage was immediate. Instead, Plaintiff vaguely 22 asserts that the allegations “raise at least a plausible formation/offer-and-acceptance dispute and, 23 alternatively, support implied-in-fact or promissory-estoppel theories that can be pled if 24 necessary” because American General spent multiple months processing Plaintiff’s application 25 and made alternative policy offers to Plaintiff. Opp’n 10. Plaintiff does not cite any authority to 26 support his argument that American General’s conduct created a contractual obligation under any 27 theory, including implied-in-fact or promissory-estoppel theories. Plaintiff provides no case law 1 more. Plaintiff’s reliance on Smith is misplaced. The case is readily distinguishable because the 2 policyholder had paid the first month’s premium along with his application for insurance. Smith v. 3 Westland Life Ins. Co., 15 Cal. 3d at 113-14. 4 The court cannot consider the additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff to determine this 5 motion. “[A] court generally is confined to the pleadings on a Rule 12(c) motion.” Gov't Emps. 6 Ins. Co. v. Nadkarni, 391 F. Supp. 3d 917, 924 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The “incorporation by 7 reference” doctrine permits the court to take into account documents “whose contents are alleged 8 in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 9 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s declaration was not referenced in the complaint. Furthermore, American General 11 disputes the authenticity of all of Plaintiff’s exhibits except Exhibit 1 (which consists of excerpts 12 from Plaintiff’s insurance application with American General). [Docket No. 31-1 (Evidentiary 13 Objections).] As a result, the court cannot consider the declaration or Exhibits 2-8. 14 Plaintiff has not alleged that a contract was formed under any theory, including implied-in- 15 fact or promissory-estoppel. As the court cannot say with certainty that amendment would be 16 futile, the court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state a contract claim. 17 B. Section 1981 18 American General argues that Plaintiff’s section 1981 claim fails because 1) section 1981 19 does not apply to discrimination based on national origin, 2) section 1981 is reverse preempted by 20 California state law, and 3) the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The court finds that 21 the statute of limitations issue is dispositive, and therefore does not reach the remaining arguments 22 because they are moot. 23 “[A] section 1981 claim is governed by either: (i) the two-year statute of limitations for 24 personal injury actions in California (if [the plaintiff’s] claim would have been possible prior to 25 the 1991 amendments to section 1981); or (ii) the federal four-year statute of limitations set forth 26 in 28 U.S.C. section 1658 (if [the plaintiff’s] claim was made possible by the 1991 amendments to 27 section 1981).” Fair v. Rosen, No. CV 24-378-HDV(E), 2024 WL 4800693, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 1 Lucent Technologies, Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011)). “As first enacted, § 1981 2 provided in relevant part that ‘all persons [within the jurisdiction of the United States] shall have 3 the same right, in every State and Territory . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by 4 white citizens.’” Jones, 541 U.S. at 372 (quoting § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27). 5 In 1991, Congress expanded section 1981 to include the “termination of contracts, and the 6 enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” Id. at 7 373 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)). 8 Plaintiff attempts to plead that a contract was formed and that American General’s 9 discriminatory conduct relates to “the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions 10 of the contractual relationship.” Opp’n 5 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)). The four-year statute of 11 limitations would apply in this scenario. The last date identified by Plaintiff as being within the 12 actionable period is September 28, 2021, which is within four years of the date that Plaintiff filed 13 the complaint on May 5, 2025. 14 As discussed above, Plaintiff has not alleged the formation of a contract. At most, 15 Plaintiff’s allegations relate to the making of a contract, which is a claim that would have been 16 possible prior to the 1991 amendments. As pleaded, the two-year statute of limitations applies. 17 September 28, 2021 is more than two years before the date that Plaintiff filed the complaint. 18 The section 1981 claim is barred by the statute of limitations and is dismissed with leave to 19 amend to the extent Plaintiff is able to amend his complaint to plausibly allege that a contract was 20 formed. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 The court grants American General’s 12(c) motion and dismisses both of Plaintiff’s claims 23 with leave to amend. This is Plaintiff’s final opportunity to amend his complaint; Plaintiff must 24 plead his best case. The amended complaint is due by January 9, 2026. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 19, 2025 27 ______________________________________