Kaul v. Fed'n of State Med. Bds.

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

March 31, 2021

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. Of these, twenty-six defendants¹ have had the claims against them transferred to the District of New Jersey and three more (former Defendants Richard Stanley, Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure, and Medical Board of California) have had the claims against them dismissed by the court. See ECF No. 149. Currently pending before the court are a Motion to Dismiss brought by the Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners ("LSBME"), Dr. Cecilia Mouton, and Dr. John Michael Burdine, ECF No. 88; a Motion to SetAside Default and Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint brought by the Federation of State Medical Boards ("FSMB"), ECF No. 127; and a Declaration in Opposition to Request for Entry of Default and Requesting Dismissal Against Daniel Stolz. ECF No. 133. Feldman opposes LSBME, Mouton, and Burdine's motion to dismiss.² Kaul opposes Defendant Stolz's motion to dismiss.³ Neither Plaintiff filed an opposition to FSMB's motion. For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT each of the three pending motions to dismiss.⁴

The court will also address the claims against four additional defendants—the Pennsylvania Medical Board ("PMB"), Lewis Stein, Scott Metzger, and United States District Judge Brian R. Martinotti—sua sponte. For the reasons set forth below, the court will DISMISS the claims against each of these Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The facts of this case are summarized at greater length in this court's prior opinion and are therefore only briefly reiterated here. See ECF No. 150.

1. Kaul

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.⁵ Id. ¶ 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 Kaul's New Jersey medical license was revoked in 2014 for performing spine surgery on eleven patients without "proper training and experience," which "constituted gross and repeated malpractice,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 claims Defendants have engaged in a massive conspiracy to "permanently eliminate [him] from the practice of medicine anywhere in the world."⁶ Compl. at 19.

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. Id. ¶ 362. Included amongst the individuals and entities named in this claim are Defendant Stolz, an attorney whose law firm served as the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee's counsel when Kaul's business entered into bankruptcy proceedings, see Id. ¶ 359; ECF No. 133, Ex. B, Bankr. Op, and Judge Martinotti, who presided over cases Kaul filed in the District of New Jersey.⁷

Kaul has also sued Stolz in separate proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. See Bankr Op. Kaul claims Stolz was part of a large conspiracy against him and, pursuant to that conspiracy, the bankruptcy Trustee failed to collect debts that Kaul believes he was owed from several insurance companies. Compl. ¶ 363, Stolz v. Kaul, No. 2:20-ap-1011-JKS, (Bankr. D.N.J.). Kaul has been permanently enjoined from suing Stolz without leave of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. In re N.J. Spine & Rehab., P.C., No. 2:13-bk-23366-JKS (Bankr. D.N.J. February 10, 2020).

In Count IV, Kaul alleges RICO violations by an additional group of seven Defendants who purportedly conspired to eliminate him from the practice of medicine, to eliminate him from competing in that field, and to destroy his professional reputation. Compl. ¶ 459. Included amongst the individuals and entities named in this claim is Defendant Stein, a New Jersey-based medical malpractice attorney. Id. ¶ 32.

2. Feldman

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. Id. ¶¶ 222-44. Following a three-day adjudicatory hearing before a panel of four physicians, LSBME found Feldman had violated the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, fined him, and suspended his medical license. Id.; 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. ¶¶ 222-44. In particular, he alleges that LSBME, its then-President, Burdine, and its then-Executive Director and Director of Investigation Mouton (collectively referred to herein as "the Louisiana Defendants") used deceptive administrative practices, improperly destroyed evidence, disseminated false information, denied Feldman due process, and otherwise conspired to obtain the suspension of Feldman's license. Id.

In Count I, Feldman claims that his medical license was illegally suspended through a scheme of bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, and fraud by LSBME, Mouton, Burdine, and Richard Stanley (a former defendant in this action and legal counsel for LSBME during Feldman's proceedings). Compl. ¶¶ 246-67. Feldman further alleges that LSBME shared the record of his suspension via U.S. wires and mail with Defendant FSMB and former Defendants California State Board of Medical Examiners and Mississippi State Board of Medical Examiners, despite knowing that the suspension was illegal and fraudulent. Id. Feldman claims 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. Id.

3. Kaul and Feldman's Joint Claim

In Count IX, the sole joint claim currently before the court, Feldman and Kaul allege that FSMB, along with other unnamed Defendants, deprived them of their due process right to apply for and maintain medical licensure via an illegal interstate compact in violation of the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution. Compl. ¶¶ 749-50.

B. Procedural History

1. Disposition of Prior Motions in this Proceeding

On November 30, 2020, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion addressing the pending motions by the New Jersey Defendants,⁸ Stanley, the Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure, and the Medical Board of California. ECF No. 150. The Opinion addressed two motions to sever and transfer, seven motions to dismiss, and a request for judicial notice. The court granted the motions to dismiss brought by Stanley, ECF No. 23, the Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure, ECF No. 68, and the Medical Board of California, ECF No. 70, and likewise granted the New Jersey Defendants' motions to sever and transfer. ECF Nos. 47, 82. The court denied the New Jersey Defendants' motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 47, 67, 82, 112, without prejudice and denied as moot the Medical Board of California's request for judicial notice, ECF No. 69.

2. Motions Presently Before the Court

The Louisiana Defendants move to dismiss the claims against them on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that this court lacks personal jurisdiction, both as a result of insufficient service of process and because Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to establish any source of general or specific personal jurisdiction over the Louisiana Defendants in this court. LSBMEalso argues that it is an arm of the Louisiana state government and thus immune from liability pursuant to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

FSMB moves to set aside the default against it and to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it was never served by Plaintiffs, that the default entered against it was thus improper, and that the court should therefore set aside this default and dismiss the action against FSMB.

Stolz likewise objects to an entry of default against him and moves to dismiss the claims against him on the grounds that they are barred by the February 10, 2020 Order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, which permanently enjoined Kaul from pursuing claims against Stolz without leave of that court in accordance with the Barton Doctrine⁹ and the Doctrine of Quasi-Judicial Immunity.¹⁰ ECF No. 133, Stolz Br. Stolz argues that the Bankruptcy Court specifically indicated that the claims before this court were implicated by the injunction, see Stolz Br. ¶ 8, and therefore Kaul's claims against him should be dismissed in accordance with that order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The court is mindful that pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, as they are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Budik v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Med. Ctr., 937 F. Supp. 2d 5, 11 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, "[a]t the motion to dismiss stage . . . pro se complaints[ ] are to be construed with sufficient liberality to afford all possible inferences favorable to the pleader on allegations of fact." Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2005). However, this liberal standard "is not . . . a license to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Neuman v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 416, 422 (D.D.C. 2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

A. Setting Aside Entries of Default

A court may set aside an entry of default for "good...