New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

RICO — Complaint Conclusorily Alleging Control and Asserting a “Fanstastical Scheme” That “Defies Logic” Fails to State a Claim (Good Quote)

Download PDF

Petrosurance, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Ins. Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5277 (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2013):

Plaintiff-Appellant Petrosurance, Inc. appeals from an August 31, 2012 judgment entered pursuant to a Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), dismissing this civil action brought against Defendants-Appellees National Association of Insurance Commissioners ("NAIC") and The National Conference of Insurance Guaranty Funds, Inc. ("NCIGF") pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. On appeal, Petrosurance argues that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, contending that it alleged plausible civil RICO claims against the defendants. ***

Having reviewed the record de novo, we agree with the district court that Petrosurance has failed to allege any facts whatsoever that would support a plausible RICO claim. The complaint alleges that the Ohio Superintendent of Insurance ("the Superintendent") wrongfully withheld approximately $14 million from Petrosurance that remained in the liquidated estate of its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Oil & Gas Insurance Company ("OGICO"), which funds Petrosurance ultimately recovered from the Superintendent in a settlement reached after several rounds of litigation. Petrosurance brings this civil RICO claim against two non-profit organizations: NAIC, a regulatory policy organization whose members are state government officials who regulate insurance; and NCIGF, a trade association whose members are property and casualty guaranty funds. The complaint asserts blithely in an entirely conclusory fashion that NAIC and NCIGF "control" state insurance regulatory officials, including the Superintendent.

The complaint's allegations are patently meritless. Without needlessly retracing the district court's reasoning in the Memorandum and Order, we observe that the complaint fails to allege (1) any predicate acts of fraud by NAIC and NCIGF that could support a charge of racketeering, or (2) any facts that plausibly suggest that they caused Petrosurance's injury by "controlling" the Superintendent or the Ohio trial court that authorized the Superintendent's plan to disburse the remainder of the estate as interest on previously allowed claims, a ruling that was later reversed. See Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273, 283 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements of civil RICO claim). We agree with the district court that Petrosurance has gone "to extraordinary lengths to construct [a] fantastical scheme, a scheme that is ripe for dismissal simply 'because it defies logic.'" Petrosurance, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Ins. Comm'rs, 888 F. Supp. 2d 491, 2012 WL 3597055, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Nelson v. Publishers Circulation Fulfillment, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 1182, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55238, 2012 WL 760335, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2012)).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice