State Farm has been superseded by Federated. See e.g., Forsman v. Chater, 1996 WL 396718, *1 (9th Cir. July 12, 1996).’ The Court’s conclusion is consistent with the prevailing view by courts and commentators alike that a change in the law is insufficient to bar the application of res judicata. See e.g., Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850-851 (5th Cir.1989), Precision Air Parts, Inc. v. Avco Corp., 736 F.2d 1499,) 1503 (11th Cir.1984) (“The general rule in this circuit, and throughout the nation, is that changes in the law after a final judgment do not prevent the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, even though the grounds on which the decision was based are subsequently overruled.”); Barzin v. Selective Service Local Board No. 14, 446 F.2d 1382, 1383 (3d Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); see also 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal
holding a stay final and appealable when the state decision would constitute res judicata as to at least the two major issues in the federal suit recognizing that a prior decision may serve as res judicata even if a contrary judicial decision on the legal issues involved intervenes between the first and second suits holding that earlier suits different legal theory did not save the later action from the res judicata bar because the central factual issues are identical holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding additional parties in second suit do not prevent the application of res judicata based on the first suit