Kaul v. Intercontinental Exchange

Background

M.D. Richard Arjun Kaul and David Basch sued Intercontinental Exchange, GEICO Insurance Company, TD Bank, Allstate Insurance Company, Federal State Medical Boards, and other named and unidentified defendants. They alleged that the defendants participated in racketeering conspiracies involving the revocation or denial of Kaul’s medical license, along with alleged violations of Sarbanes-Oxley, civil-rights laws, constitutional amendments, Section 1983, and the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

The opinion recounts that Kaul’s New Jersey medical license was revoked in March 2014 after disciplinary proceedings concerning spine surgeries. Kaul and Basch had previously filed a similar action in the Southern District of New York. In that earlier round of the case, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice and barred Kaul from filing new actions arising from those facts against the defendants named there without first obtaining permission.

Plaintiffs filed this action without obtaining that permission. The complaint alleged that the earlier judge had improperly dismissed the prior case, that a medical board had participated in denying Kaul a license, and that insurers used a medical education program to support a negative report about Kaul. Allstate and Federal State Medical Boards sought dismissal, and Intercontinental Exchange also asked the court to dismiss based on the anti-filing injunction. Plaintiffs separately filed a motion for summary judgment and requested default judgment against Robert Heary.

Court’s Analysis

Anti-filing injunction. The court held that the lawsuit fell within the earlier filing injunction. It found that the complaint was brought against the same defendants named in the earlier case and that the allegations arose from the denial of Kaul’s medical license or from litigation related to that dispute. The court specifically concluded that the three RICO claims plaintiffs described as new also concerned the medical-license dispute and therefore were barred by the injunction.

Claim preclusion. The court also applied claim preclusion, which prevents a party from relitigating issues already decided and necessary to an earlier judgment. It found that most of the complaint closely copied the earlier complaint and that the prior court had entered a final decision dismissing those claims with prejudice. The court therefore held that claim preclusion barred all claims in the current action except the three new RICO claims. Those three claims, however, were barred by the anti-filing injunction.

Rule 8(a)(2). The court additionally dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Relying in part on its description of the earlier complaint, the court found that the new complaint remained rambling, difficult to follow, and unintelligible despite including additional facts and claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not separately identify a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment or their request for default judgment against Robert Heary.