United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Richard A. Kaul, an anesthesiologist by training, claims to
be a minimally invasive spine surgeon. In March 2014, the New
Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners (the
"Board") said otherwise. Because his performance of
spine surgeries on 11 patients without proper training and
experience constituted gross and repeated malpractice,
negligence, and incompetence, the Board revoked his medical
license. From Dr. Kaul's perspective, the disciplinary
proceedings were nothing but a sham. What really happened, he
says, is that a network of politically connected
neurosurgeons wanted to make an example of him. His
high-quality medical practice was cutting into their margins,
and so with the assistance of a cabal of lawyers, hospitals,
insurance companies, and media figures, they importuned
public officials to banish him from the practice of medicine
in New Jersey. And so Dr. Kaul brought this action against
some forty-odd defendants.
before the court are dozens of motions to dismiss, which in
general will be granted. In part, the motions are granted
under Rule 12(b)(1), on grounds of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. For the most part, however, dismissal is on
12(b)(6) grounds, because the amended complaint fails to
allege plausibly any cause of action as to any defendant.
gist of the amended complaint ("AC") is that the
entire medical, legal, and political
("medico-legal", in Dr. Kaul's words) community
of New Jersey conspired to revoke Dr. Kaul's license. No
surprise, then, that Dr. Kaul's list of grievances
contained in this 101-page AC is exhaustive. To begin to
untangle the thick knot of private citizens, professional
organizations, law firms, attorneys, administrators,
politicians, and public officials alleged to have been in on
the scheme to deprive Dr. Kaul of his license, this
introductory section proceeds in five subparts.
is a summary of the parties involved and the nature of the
allegations against them. Part I.B summarizes the license
revocation proceedings. Because it is relevant to res
judicata and Younger abstention issues, Part I.C
describes some actions related to this one. Part I.D
concludes this background section with some information about
the procedural history and claims asserted in this case.
must, I accept as true Dr. Kaul's allegations for the
purpose of these motions to dismiss.
Kaul went to medical school in London and completed his
residency here, at Albert Einstein-Montefiore Medical Center
in New York. He became a board-certified anesthesiologist. In
2003, the Board suspended Dr. Kaul's license to practice
medicine; in 2012, they revoked it entirely and permanently.
These incidents, and others, are discussed below, but the
takeaway for now is this: The AC claims that the 2012
disciplinary proceedings were the result of a vast conspiracy
between the Governor, hospitals, insurance companies,
lawyers, and competitors to drive Dr. Kaul, a minimally
invasive spine surgery pioneer, out of business. (See
convenience, I group the defendants into eight categories.
The State Defendants
Jersey Attorney General's Office represents these nine
defendants in this case:
• The Board, which is responsible for licensing and
censuring New Jersey doctors. (AC ¶ 35)
• Christopher J., Christie, who is the Governor of the
State of New Jersey. Allegedly, he was moved to revoke Dr.
Kaul's medical license by a series of kickback and quid
pro quo arrangements with the other defendants. (Id.
¶ 3, 54)
• Jeffrey Chiesa is the former Attorney General
("AG") of the State of New Jersey. Chiesa was AG
when the Board revoked Dr. Kaul's license. As to Chiesa,
the thrust of the AC is that he allowed the 2012 revocation
hearings to unfold unfairly. Particularly distressing to Dr.
Kaul is Chiesa's failure to investigate the alteration of
unidentified portions of certain transcripts of the
administrative proceedings. (Id. ¶ 4, 57, 210)
• Howard Solomon is the Administrative Law Judge who
presided over Dr. Kaul's 2012 disciplinary proceedings.
Following a 23-day hearing, he issued a 94-page opinion. ALJ
Solomon concluded that Dr. Kaul's performance of spine
surgeries on 11 patients constituted gross malpractice and
recommended that the Board revoke his medical license. An
article he read about Dr. Kaul in a Bergen County newspaper,
the Record, allegedly influenced his decision. (See
generally ALJ Op.; AC ¶¶ 59-60, 97)
• William Roeder is executive director of the
Board. (Id. ¶ 36)
• Dr. Steven Lomazow is a neurologist and was a senior
member of the Board in 2012. (Id. ¶ 15)
• Dr. Gregory Przybylski is a neurologist. He testified
as an expert witness for the State in the 2012 disciplinary
proceedings, falsely. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 85, 160)
• Dr. Andrew Kaufman, an anesthesiologist, also
testified as an expert witness for the State in those
proceedings. At some point, he made false statements that Dr.
Kaul was not qualified to perform minimally invasive spine
surgeries, perhaps during the 2012 disciplinary proceedings.
(ALJ Op. 41-44; AC ¶¶ 34, 67, 85).
• Dr. Kaul is also suing the State of New Jersey. (AC
The Doctor Defendants
following seven defendants are surgeons (though the AC
isn't always clear, I presume they are neurosurgeons) in
New Jersey. For the most part, Dr. Kaul claims that they are
his jealous competitors, and thus stood to benefit from his
• Dr. Robert Heary consulted with one of Dr. Kaul's
patients and encouraged her to sue Dr. Kaul for medical
malpractice. (Id. ¶ 13, 68)
• Dr. Frank Moore is a professor of neurosurgery at
Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. (Id.
• Dr. Peter Carmel is a co-director of neurosurgery at
the Neurological Institute of New Jersey in Newark. Dr.
Carmel used his authority as President of the American
Medical Association ("AMA") to enact legislation
that favored neurosurgeons and hospitals and downgrade the
value of endoscopic discectomies. (Id. ¶¶
18, 72, 80, 92)
• Dr. William Mitchell is the attending neurosurgeon at
John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Edison, New Jersey. He,
too, caused endoscopic discectomies to become less
profitable, which reduced Dr. Kaul's revenues.
(Id. ¶¶ 20, 73)
• Dr. Thomas Peterson is also a neurosurgeon and
affiliated in some way with Hackensack University Medical
Center ("HUMC"). Dr. Peterson once called Dr. Kaul
a "murderer" in front of one of Dr. Kaul's
employees. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 90, 176)
• Dr. Peter Staats is the President of The American
Society of Interventional Pain Physicians ("ASIPP")
and the editor of Pain Medicine News. He has "devoted a
large percentage of career to medical politics."
(Id. ¶¶ 22, 74)
• Dr. Marc Cohen sent a complaint about Dr. Kaul
performing spine surgeries to the Board in 2007.
(Id. ¶¶ 23, 75)
The Hospital Defendants
Kaul's allegations as to these five defendants, hospitals
and their presidents, are generally similar, so I group them
together. (E.g. AC ¶¶ 118, 147, 176, 205,
235, 260, 293) He claims that these defendants compete with
surgical centers, such as the one Dr. Kaul ran, and therefore
had reason to divert business from him to themselves.
• Atlantic Health System ("AHS") is a
healthcare company comprised of number of hospitals,
including Morristown Medical Center, Overlook Medical Center,
Chilton Medical Center, and Hackettstown Medical Center. Drs.
Cohen, Heary, Carmel, Lomazow, and Kaufman "do
business" with AHS. (AC ¶ 11)
• Brian Gragnolati became the president of AHS on May 4,
2015. (Id. ¶ 42, Def. Ex. V ¶ 14)
• Hackensack University Medical Center
("HUMC") is hospital. Drs. Peters and Heary
"do business" with HUMC. (Id. ¶ 11)
• Robert Garrett is the president of HUMC. (Id.
• University Hospital, incorrectly pled as Rutgers
School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, is a hospital
affiliated with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Drs. Heary, Carmel, and Kaufman "do business" with
University Hospital. (Id. ¶ 12)
• James Gonzalez is the president of University
Hospital. Gonzalez allegedly failed to take appropriate
action after Dr. Kaul sent Gonzalez a letter describing an
incident in which Dr. Kaufman defamed him to one of his
patients. (Id. ¶ 39)
The Medical Organization Defendants
following four medical organizations (plus Dr. Wolfa, the
chairman of one) are involved in this case. Dr. Kaul
generally attributes the wrongful acts (e.g.,
improper political influence, lobbying, defamation, etc.) of
their members, the Doctor Defendants, to them.
• The Congress of Neurological Surgeons
("CNS") is a professional medical society. Drs.
Heary, Przyblyski, Carmel, Mitchell, Moore, and Peterson are
all members. (Id. ¶¶ 30)
• Christopher Wolfa is the chairman of the professional
conduct committee at CNS. He allegedly failed to take
appropriate action after Dr. Kaul filed an ethics complaint
against Dr. Przblyski, who is a CNS member. (Id.
¶¶ 31, 70)
• The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians
("ASIPP") is a professional medical society. Dr.
Staats is president; Dr. Kaufman is a senior member.
(Id. ¶¶ 29, 34)
• The American Medical Association ("AMA") is
a professional medical association. Dr. Carmel was its
president in 2011, (Id. ¶ 19)
• The North American Spine Society ("NASS") is
global medical society. Dr. Przybylski was its president in
2011; Dr. Cohen is a member. (Id. ¶¶ 28,
The Insurance Defendants
next five defendants allegedly stood to gain from the
revocation of Dr. Kaul's license, and in some way bore
responsibility for it:
• Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company
("Allstate") is the New Jersey subsidiary of
Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate owes Dr. Kaul $10
million for clinical services rendered. (AC ¶¶ 7,
• Richard Crist was the CEO of Allstate. (Id.
¶ 6, Def. Ex. BB, ECF No. 128-30)
• Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity
Co., GEICO Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Co,
(collectively, "GEICO") provides auto insurance.
GEICO used the revocation of Dr. Kaul's license as an
excuse not to pay him fees owed. They also advanced
legislation that favored it at the expense of surgical
centers and interventional pain physicians such as Dr. Kaul.
Sometime in 2013, GIECO filed an insurance fraud lawsuit
against Dr. Kaul, and conspired with the Media Defendants to
publish false stories about him. (Id. ¶¶
9, 61, 98, 153)
• Berkshire Hathaway is the parent company GEICO. Dr.
Kaul seeks to hold it liable for GEICO's conduct.
(Id. ¶¶ 9, 62)
• Warren Buffett is the chairman and CEO of Berkshire
Hathaway, and Dr. Kaul's seeks to hold him liable for
GEICO and Berkshire Hathaway's conduct. (Id.
¶¶ 44, 63)
The Bank Defendants
two defendants allegedly illegally foreclosed on a $ 1
million loan they had given Dr. Kaul to construct a surgical
• TD Bank, N. A. is a bank. After obtaining a default
judgment against Dr. Kaul, he had to declare bankruptcy. As a
result of TD Bank's efforts to enforce that judgment, Dr.
Kaul was unable to recover proceeds from the sale of his
Manhattan townhouse. Dr. Kaul also says that TD Bank falsely
told others in the banking community that he had committed
insurance fraud. [Id. ¶¶ 10, 55, 64, 184)
• Divyesh Kothari is the Vice President of TD Bank. He
used "false pretenses to obstruct . . . the townhouse
and force it into foreclosure. (Id. ¶ 40, 185)
The Law Firm Defendants
five law firms and attorneys represented in Dr. Kaul in
various capacities. He generally accuses them of ethical
misconduct or incompetence, although it is not very clear
what legal services or matters are involved.
• Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC ("S&H") is a New
Jersey law firm, and Kenneth Hollenbeck is its Managing
Partner. S&H and Hollenbeck attempted to extort $196, 000
in legal fees from Dr. Kaul two weeks before the disciplinary
hearing by threatening to withdraw from some representation
unless Dr. Kaul paid up.(AC¶¶21, 25, 76, 77, 135)
• Brach Eichler LLC is a New Jersey law firm, and Joseph
Gorrell is a partner there. The firm has close ties to the
Governor and, at some point, represented ASIPP. Had Dr. Kaul
known either of these facts, he would have retained different
counsel for some matter. The remainder of the allegations
involving Brach Eichler and Gorrell are difficult to parse,
though the firm seems to have played an important role in
alleged conspiracy. Gorrell "was motived by the promise
of increased revenues that he knew would be generated from
other physicians seeking legal counsel, in the wake of the
commencement of the plaintiffs revocation
proceedings."(Id. ¶¶ 26, 27, 78,
• Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C., pled as
"Dughi Hewitt LLC, " is a New Jersey law firm.
Michael Keating is partner at Dughi Hewit, and he represented
Dr. Kaul in an unsuccessful December 2014 bid to reinstate
his medical license. Way back when, Governor Christie was a
partner at Dughi Hewit. Because of the firm and Keating's
cozy relationship to the Governor and participants in the
medical and legal community generally, Dr. Kaul claims that
Keating and Dughi Hewit deliberately botched or slow-pedaled
the reinstatement effort, and then overcharged
(Id. ¶¶ 32, 33, 83. 170, 229, 287)
The Media Defendants
Kaul seeks to hold these final two defendants, a reporter and
a newspaper publisher, liable for publishing an allegedly
libelous article in November 2013.
• Lindy Washburn is a journalist. She wrote a defamatory
"six-thousand-word story" on Dr. Kaul that was
published on the front page of The Record on November 17,
2013, just before ALJ Solomon rendered the initial decision
to terminate his medical license. The goal was to influence
the ALJ's decision. Dr. Kaul specifically takes issue
with the statement that he had "an Upper crust British
accent, " which was intended "to malign the
plaintiffs character by associating him with the British
Aristocracy, towards whom the average American holds
hostility, because of the recent War of Independence."
She recorded Dr. Kaul without his permission. She also knew
that official transcripts of the 2012 disciplinary
proceedings were altered but she didn't report that in
her story. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 89, 153, 175, 204,
• North Jersey Media, Inc. ("NJM*"} owns The
Record, and employs Washburn. Its owners, "The Borg
Family, " have commercial interests which align with the
co-defendants, and NJM acted as "a mouthpiece" for
the Governor and his defendant donors. The quid for NJM's
quo was preferential access to "state government
news." (AC ¶¶ 37, 88)
The Disciplinary Proceedings
I.A makes clear, the conduct and events at the heart of this
dispute occurred during or immediately after disciplinary
proceedings that concluded years ago. Here is a summary of
13, 2012, the AG initiated administrative disciplinary
proceedings against Dr. Kaul. The charges, in essence, were
that Dr. Kaul did not possess the "accepted standard of
surgical training, education, and experience to perform
spinal surgical procedures" and the "flagrant
disregard of his own lack of training and expertise . . .
place[d] the public in clear and imminent danger." The
AG sought an immediate suspension of Dr. Kaul's medical
license. (Def. Ex. A.)
matter was then referred to the Office of Administrative Law
as a contested matter. ALJ Solomon presided over 23 days of
hearings, running from April 9, 2013, to June 28, 2013. Drs.
Kaufman and Przybylski testified on behalf of the Board. The
record closed on October 28, 2013. (ALJ Op. 1-44)
Solomon issued his initial decision on December 31, 2013.
Here are a few of his findings of fact:
2. [Dr. Kaul's] education, training, internships,
residencies and fellowships were insufficient to prepare him
for surgeries of the spine, whether minimally invasive or
3. The CME courses he took were insufficient to provide such
education and training. If hands-on training were offered, it
was, in most instances, done on cadavers. In others, he was
primarily an observer.
4. In addition to his lack of sufficient education and
training in spinal surgeries, he did not receive sufficient
monitoring by a trained overseer. For instance, he was on his
own the first time he inserted a pedicle screw in a live
patient, without the presence of any trained monitor.
5. Respondent's treatment included, but was not limited
to, inserting pedicle screws into the spinal canal; failing
to immediately remove a stimulator after the onset of
infection, thereby risking paralysis; using
OptiMesh as an interbody structural device; and
performing a staged fusion, as well as other acts as
discussed above, 6. Some of his patient consents were
unsigned. . . .
9. He used allograft bone in patients who were
10. He failed to advise patients who were smokers of the
risks associated with smoking and allograft bone.
11. He misrepresented his qualifications, not only on his
website, but also in discussions with his patients.
12. None of his certifications were recognized by the
American Board of Medical Specialties, with the exception of
his board-certification in anesthesiology. Non-recognition
included his certification by the American Board of
Interventional Pain Management.
(ALJ Op. 80-81)
infractions, the ALJ found, went far beyond mere puffery or
resume-fudging. To the contrary, over the course of 94 pages,
ALJ Solomon detailed the physical and emotional harm Dr. Kaul
inflicted on 11 patients who trusted that he was competent to
do-and, on several occasions, that he would in fact do-what
he told them he could do.
just one example, patient T.Z.:
The next patient called by petitioner was T.Z., a
forty-year-old woman. In the latter part of 2009, she began
experiencing pain in her neck and back following an
automobile accident. A neighbor, who had been a patient of
respondent, recommended [Dr. Kaul]. T.Z. then checked
respondent's website, where he represented that he was a
board-certified minimally invasive spine specialist. T.Z. was
under the clear impression that if she decided to treat with
him, any surgery, if one were required, would be minimal, and
nothing more ....
He told her that he was going to insert two screws and scrape
a disc that appeared to be bulging, that the surgery would
last approximately forty-five minutes, and would only involve
a small incision, about one inch in length. The patient
stated that it was her clear understanding was that this was
going to be a minor procedure, nothing more, and that she
would be discharged the same day, followed by a minimal
recovery period of about a week or so. The patient stated
that she made it very clear to respondent that she would not
agree to anything more significant.
Although she smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, she stated
that respondent never mentioned anything about smoking or its
risks associated with surgery.
On September 19, 2011, respondent performed a fusion at
¶ 3-L4 with the insertion of five screws. . . .
On the date of the surgery, she and her husband arrived at
the surgical center early in the morning for what was thought
to be a forty-five-minute procedure. Instead, she left the
surgery center around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Her husband told her
that she was in surgery for about six to seven hours. The
ride home was excruciating-she was in extreme pain and felt
nauseous. . . . Upon arriving home, she could not walk
because the pain was so intense. Her husband called his
father and together they placed her in a plastic chair and
lifted her up the ten to twelve steps into her home. Once she
was inside, she was placed in a recliner. . . .
On December 24, 2011, T.Z. was taken to Pocono Hospital,
where she was admitted, because she had severe difficulty
walking. The pain and numbness to the inside of her legs and
buttocks was worsening. . . . [W]hile at Pocono Hospital, she
was informed that the entire disc had been removed. She also
learned that five screws, instead of two, had been inserted.
From Pocono Hospital, she was transferred by ambulance to
Lehigh Valley Hospital .... It was then that she learned that
respondent was not an orthopedist, as she had initially
thought, but an anesthesiologist.
On October 14, 2011, after noticing oozing from one of the
incisions left by respondent, she consulted Brian Morse,
D.O., who performed nerve testing on her legs. They did not
respond. He recommended that she see George Naseef, M.D., an
orthopedic surgeon. She saw Dr. Naseef on November 17, 2011,
complaining of difficulty in walking, leg numbness, her right
ankle giving out (going off to the side), and loss of
balance, particularly on non-flat surfaces . . . Dr. Naseef
told her that two screws had penetrated the nerve in her
spine and that she needed surgery. . . .
On January 30, 2012, Dr. Naseef performed a revision surgery
at Morristown Memorial Hospital.
During these proceedings, T.Z. was asked to display the scars
left by respondent. One scar was vertical at the midline of
the low back, and measured approximately eight inches. There
was also a horizontal scar to the left of the eight-inch
scar, which measured about two inches. . . .
As the result of respondent's surgery, she had to use a
walker for about six months for balance, which she began
using immediately following the surgery. After six months,
she used a cane daily, also for balance. For months, her
husband had to escort her to the bathroom, where she used a
specially raised toilet seat. This lasted for several months.
In addition, her feet have become positioned outward. The
inner sides of her legs remain numb and she continues to have
back pain. She stated that no day is a good day. Her pain
starts upon awakening and worsens as the day progresses.
It was noted by the undersigned that when she approached and
left the witness stand, she used a cane and ambulated very
slowly. She also brought a pillow to sit on and was sobbing
throughout most of her testimony.
Her husband, M.Z., also testified. He accompanied T.Z. to her
initial consultation with respondent. He specifically
recalled respondent telling them that the procedure would
last about forty-five minutes and would involve a
three-quarter-inch incision. . . .
He stated that T.Z. is now essentially confined to a
recliner. She does not even sleep in bed. . . .
Petitioner called George S. Naseef III, M.D., a
board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to testify. Dr. Naseef. .
. performed corrective surgery on T.Z. . . .
Dr. Naseef determined that the L-3 screws were not in proper
line and the right S-1 screw was in the S-1 nerve root, not
in the pedicle. Both L-3 screws and the right S-1 screw had
perforated the bone and were in the nerve canal. . . .
During surgery on January 30, 2012, Dr. Naseef noted that the
right and left L-3 screws were in the canal, and the right
S-1 screw was grossly malpositioned and in the canal. . . .
Once the right S-1 screw was removed, nerve function
immediately returned to the patient's leg. ... He stated
that of the five screws inserted, only one was positioned
(ALJ Op. 53-57)
the evidence in the record,  ALJ Solomon concluded that the
Attorney General "prove[d]  well beyond a
preponderance of the credible evidence" that Dr. Kaul
"never should have performed any spinal surgeries,
whether they were called minimally invasive or open, given
his lack of education and training." "[T]hat he
performed such surgeries, without the requisite education and
training, and in disregard for the safety of several patients
who testified on behalf of petitioner, . . . warrant[s]
nothing less than the revocation of his medical license[,
]" the ALJ recommended. (ALJ Op. 93)
March 12, 2014, the Board adopted ALJ Solomon's opinion
and order in its entirety. It then considered the appropriate
penalty for Dr. Kaul's conduct. Observing that Dr. Kaul,
rather than acknowledging wrongdoing or demonstrating
contrition after the ALJ's decision instead lobbed
"broad allegations of altered court transcripts,
interference with legal evidence and political influence,
" the Board struggled to "find any mitigating
factors in this matter." Indeed, the Board found Dr.
Kaul's lack of remorse
"disturbing."(Order 22-23, 25)
Board also considered that this was not his first offense.
About ten years earlier, the Board had suspended Dr.
Kaul's medical license based on his failure to disclose
in various credentialing applications that he had been
convicted of manslaughter for killing a patient in
England. Despite his failure to be forthright and
honest in his dealings with the Board and others, the Board
was lenient. The tragic incident in England, it reasoned,
appeared to be just a mistake, and with due care similar
incidents could be prevented. It therefore "eschewed a
more stringent penalty with the hope and expectation that
respondent will resolve to practice with the vigilance that
he has promised." Under the circumstances, the Board
found a two-year suspension to be a sufficient sanction. But
"[f]uture transgressions, " it warned, "will
not be deserving of leniency." (Order 23-24)
that backdrop-Dr. Kaul's lack of remorse, his intent to
continue to perform spine surgeries, and his failure to
"turn over a new leaf to practice medicine
responsibly"-the Board adopted the ALJ's
recommendation to revoke Dr. Kaul's license, effective
February 12, 2014. It further imposed the statutory maximum
fine of $20, 000 for each of the 15 counts of malpractice and
misconduct charged, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
All told, the Board imposed $475, 422.32 in civil penalties,
fees, and costs. (Order 28-29)
Kaul did not appeal the Board's final decision to the New
Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Concurrent and Subsequent Litigation
the years, Dr. Kaul has sued, and has been sued, in several
actions that bear some relation to this one. Two are
particularly relevant to these motions to dismiss.
BER-L-2256-13 (suit against doctors)
couple weeks before the first ALJ hearing, on March 22, 2013,
Dr. Kaul sued Drs. Heary, Moore, Carmel, Przybylski and
Mitchell in New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County. He
alleged defamation, commercial disparagement, intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair
competition, conspiracy, and aid in the commission of a tort.
On March 7, 2014 (about three months after the ALJ's
initial decision and five days before the Board's final
decision), the complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to
Drs. Pr2ybylski, Moore, and Carmel. (State Compl.; State
UNN-L332-15 (Santos malpractice)
September 24, 2015, Ana Santos filed a malpractice complaint
against Dr. Kaul in New Jersey Superior Court, Union County.
In June 2016, Dr. Kaul filed counterclaims and third-party
claims against Governor Christie, the Board, Dr. Staats, and
Dr. Carmel alleging the same causes of action asserted here:
violations of RICO, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Hobbs
Act, mail fraud, wire fraud, honest services fraud,
defamation, section 1983, Title VII, commercial
disparagement, intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage, and aid in the commission in the tort.
That case appears to be ongoing. (Def. Ex. J, ECF No. 128-12)
Kaul filed his original complaint on February 22, 2016, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District in
New York. Because almost all of the defendants and events
giving rise to the complaint were located in New Jersey, on
April 19, 2016, Judge ...