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

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

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