Kaul v. Fed'n of State Med. Boards

RICHARD ARJUN KAUL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-3050 (TSC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

November 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiffs Richard Kaul and Arnold Feldman, proceeding pro se, have sued over thirty companies, medical boards, and individuals, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Various defendants have filed five motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 23, 67, 68, 70, & 112), a request for judicial notice (ECF No. 69), and two motions to sever Kaul's claims and transfer them to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, or alternatively, to dismiss the claims (ECF Nos. 47 & 82). Plaintiffs oppose the first motion to sever and transfer. Feldman opposes each of the motions to dismiss his claims.¹ For the reasonsset forth below, the court will GRANT the New Jersey Defendants'² motions to sever and transfer, (ECF Nos. 47 & 82), and will therefore DENY without prejudice the New Jersey Defendants' motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 47, 67, 82, & 112). The court will also GRANT the other motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 23, 68, & 70), and will DENY the request for judicial notice as moot. (ECF No. 69.)³

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. Plaintiff Kaul

Plaintiff Richard Kaul was formerly a board-certified anesthesiologist licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey. (ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 21.) He purports to be a resident of New York.⁴(Compl. ¶ 21.) Kaul's New Jersey medical license was revoked in 2014 for performing spine surgery on eleven patients without "proper training and experience," which "constituted gross and repeated malpractice, negligence, and incompetence." Kaul v. Christie ("Kaul I"), No. 2:16-cv-2364, 2017 WL 2953680, at *1 (D.N.J. June 30, 2017). Kaul alleges that Defendants have engaged in a massive conspiracy to "permanently eliminate [him] from the practice of medicine anywhere in the world." (Compl. at 19.) He brings five claims independently and three with Feldman.

In Count II, Kaul alleges that ten Defendants revoked his license in a conspiracy intended to increase their revenues, market share, and political power. (Compl. ¶ 272.) His allegations implicate former New Jersey Governor Christopher J. Christie, Dr. Andrew Kaufman (who testified against Kaul), the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians and its former president, Dr. Peter Staats, Dr. Steven Lomazow (a business competitor), Doreen Hafner (Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey), Dr. Marc Cohen (a business competitor), the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and its president, Dr. Gregory Przybylski, and Dr. Robert Heary (attending physician at Atlantic Health System and Hackensack University Medical Center). (Compl. ¶ 269.)

In Count III, Kaul claims that several Defendants conspired to destroy his reputation and medical practice so insurance companies could avoid paying him for services rendered to patients. (Compl. ¶ 362.) The allegations in Count III are directed at former Governor Christie, the GEICO Defendants,⁵ Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company ("Allstate"), TD Bank, NA, Daniel Stolz (an attorney whose firm served as Chapter 7 trustee for Kaul's business' bankruptcyproceedings), John Di Iorio (an attorney who represented Kaul during the Chapter 7 proceedings), Richard Crist (Allstate chief operating officer), Jay Howard Solomon (administrative law judge who oversaw Kaul's administrative proceedings), Hafner, and Judge Brian Martinotti⁶ (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). (Compl. ¶ 359.)

In Count IV, Kaul claims several Defendants further violated RICO by engaging in a conspiracy with the intent to destroy his practice and reputation and divert business to the Defendants' medical facilities and physicians.⁷ (Compl. ¶ 459.)

In Count V, Kaul alleges that four Defendants violated RICO by conspiring to destroy Kaul's reputation and his economic standing in order to divert his patients to facilities and physicians connected with Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 564.)⁸

In Count VI, Kaul alleges that a number of Defendants violated the Clayton Act and Sherman Act by engaging in anticompetitive schemes intended to reduce the minimally invasive spinal surgery market. (Compl. ¶¶ 637-700.) These Defendants allegedly engaged in such schemes through fraud, political bribery, encouraging litigation or complaints by customers against doctors such as Plaintiffs, creating non-compete areas, and regulating who could perform fusion treatments. (Compl. ¶¶ 637-700.) The Complaint lists Defendants Kaufman, Staats,Przybylski, College of Neurological Surgeons, Heary, Cohen, Hackensack University Medical Center, Atlantic Health Systems, John Burdine, and Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners ("LMB") under Count VI, but does not allege any facts against Defendants Burdine or LMB or any events occurring outside New Jersey. (See Compl. ¶¶ 639-700.)

2. Plaintiff Feldman

Plaintiff Arnold Erwin Feldman is a resident of Florida, and was formerly licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and California. (Compl. ¶ 22.) In 2013, Feldman was investigated for violating the Louisiana Medical Practice Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 222-244.) The investigation resulted in an administrative proceeding in 2016, in which the LMB ultimately fined Feldman and suspended his medical license. (Compl. ¶¶ 222-244.) See also Feldman v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, No. 2018-ca-0033, 2018 WL 5830390 (La. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2018) (affirming sanctions against Feldman). Feldman contends that the 2013 investigation and the resultant administrative proceeding violated his right to due process. (Compl. ¶¶ 222-244.)

In Count I of the Complaint, Feldman asserts that Defendants violated RICO in two ways. First, Feldman claims his medical license was illegally suspended through a scheme of bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, and fraud by Defendants LMB, Cecilia Mouton (Executive Director and Director of Investigation for LMB), John Burdine (President of LMB), and Richard Stanley (legal counsel for LMB during Feldman's proceedings). (Compl. ¶¶ 246-267.) Second, Feldman alleges that LMB then shared the record of his suspension via U.S. wires and mail with Defendants Federation of State Medical Boards ("FSMB"), California State Board of Medical Examiners ("CMB"), and Mississippi State Board of Medical Examiners ("MMB") despite knowing that the suspension was illegal and fraudulent. (Compl. ¶¶ 246-267.) Feldmanclaims in both instances that Defendants used their political power against him to eliminate competition, and that this behavior thus constitutes a "pattern of racketeering" in violation of RICO. (Compl. ¶¶ 246-267.)

3. Kaul and Feldman's Joint Claims

In Counts VII-IX, Feldman and Kaul allege that certain Defendants deprived them of their due process rights under color of law, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive fines clause, and entered into an illegal interstate compact in violation of the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution.⁹ (Compl. ¶¶ 701-750.) The Complaint implicates Defendants Christie (in his official capacity), Kaufman (in his official capacity), Przybylski (in his official capacity), Solomon (in his official capacity), Hafner (in her official capacity), Allstate, GEICO, NJBME, Mouton, LMB, CMB, and MMB. (See Compl. ¶¶ 701-750.)

4. Other Related Litigation

Kaul has filed multiple suits raising similar claims. In 2016, he filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York alleging similar RICO violations by the NJBME, several medical insurance companies, and individual actors, many of whom are named as Defendants in this case. Kaul I, 2017 WL 2953680. The Southern District of New York sua sponte transferred the case to the District of New Jersey, where Kaul's claims were eventually dismissed because they either duplicated claims raised previously in New Jersey state court, failed to state a claim, or were barred by sovereign immunity. Kaul v. Christie, 372 F. Supp. 3d 206, 255 (D.N.J. 2019).

While Kaul I was pending, Kaul filed a second complaint in the Southern District of New York, which was likewise transferred to the District of New Jersey. Kaul v. Christie ("Kaul II"),No. 2:18-cv-8086, 2020 WL 967886 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2020). The District of New Jersey found that Kaul II had "such significant overlap" with Kaul I that they were "essentially the same case." Id. at *2. Kaul II has been stayed until Kaul I is concluded. Id. at *7-8. A year after he filed Kaul II, Kaul filed a third case in the Southern District of New York, which was also transferred to the District of New Jersey. Kaul v. Schumer ("Kaul III"), No. 2:19-cv-13477 (D.N.J. August 5, 2020). Kaul III alleged a different conspiracy and named a different group of defendants from Kaul I and Kaul II; however, the claims in Kaul III rested on the outcome of Kaul I, so the case has likewise been stayed until Kaul I is concluded. Id. at *4-5.

In 2019, Kaul joined another Plaintiff, Harshad Patel, in filing two suits in the Northern District of Georgia. The first of these raised similar conspiracy claims to those raised by Kaul in his prior suits in New York and New Jersey. See Patel v. Christ ("Patel I"), No. 1:19-cv-0612 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2019). The second suit alleged a broad conspiracy to discriminate against healthcare providers of Indian descent. See Patel v. Crist ("Patel II"), No. 1:19-cv-0739 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 2, 2019). Both cases were transferred to the District of New Jersey and subsequently dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Patel v. Crist, No. 2:19-cv-8946, 2020 WL 6156751 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2020); Patel v. Crist, No. 2:19-cv-9232, 2020 WL 6156772 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2020). In denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint a third time, the court noted...