A racketeering action arising out of a foreclosure rescue scam. The plaintiff, a hardworking homeowner with two jobs, asserts that Defendants, mortgage financiers Franklin Credit Management Corporation, Tribeca Lending Corp. and others, fraudulently induced her to sign certain blank papers with false representations concerning a proposed “bridge loan” transaction to stave off a then-pending foreclosure on her home, and to enable her complete medical school without financial worries. However, unknown to her, Defendants transposed her signatures on blank pages onto several mortgage-related documents. The entire transaction was a sham, conducted in gross violation of the common law as well as applicable state and federal laws. Plaintiff asserts claims under federal racketeering laws, Truth in Lending Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, deceptive trade practices law of New York, and the common law, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys fees and expenses. The Court has imposed sanctions upon defendants for violating their discovery obligations Crawford v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation. Trial is expected to be held later this year; meanwhile, the New York State Supreme Court has stayed foreclosure and sale of plaintiff's home, observing "It is without question that the charges stated in the federal lawsuit are serious and are typical of the horror stories that have surfaced since the mortgage crisis exploded in this country." Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Linda Crawford
An action on behalf of several foreign-born pharmacists challenging the constitutionality of New York State Education Law, Section 6805(1)(6), which governs the licensing of pharmacists in New York. The pharmacists-plaintiffs assert that this statutory provision (a) interferes with their constitutional right to pursue a chosen calling/profession; (b) imposes an impermissible burden on their constitutional right to interstate migration/travel; (c) discriminates against aliens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) interferes with the national immigration policy which is the exclusive province of the United States government and enunciated in immigration laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, thereby violating the Supremacy Clause.
A class action against Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., of New York City, asserting a fraudulent scheme to entrap small businesspersons fraudulently into equipment leases with undisclosed charges and onerous terms. Plaintiffs, small businesses from all over the country, assert that Northern Leasing deceptively sells these leases to small businessmen through what appears to be a standard form one page lease, complete with signatures, and a personal guaranty. Thereafter, it routinely charges and collects much more than what is specified in the first page, and foists several other liabilities on the unsuspecting small businesses. When small businesses raise questions, Northern Leasing finally reveals the existence of 3 additional pages which make the lease irrevocable, onerous, and virtually indefinite. Routinely, these pages and their contents are never disclosed to the small businesses at the inception, and are not incorporated into the lease. Nevertheless, Northern Leasing saddles small businesses with all these terms and enforces them strictly. Moreover, Northern Leasing imposes charges which were never disclosed in the lease. The trial court upheld the claim for fraud and punitive damages, ruling that the "allegations address more than a private wrong contending that defendants engaged in a course of conduct throughout the United States with such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations." Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. On appeal, the the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has upheld the claims for fraud against Northern Leasing and its senior management, as well as the claim for breach of contract against Northern Leasing. In addition, the Court also held that "defendants' fraudulent motive and tortious conduct aimed at the public generally suffice to plead a claim for punitive damages under both the breach of contract and common-law fraud causes of action." Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. The individual Defendants, i.e., senior management of Northern Leasing, appealed to the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) seeking dismissal of the fraud claims against them. The United States Chamber of Commerce filed an Amicus brief in their support. However, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division, and in a landmark ruling relaxing the pleading standards for fraud in New York, upheld the fraud claims against Northern Leasing's top management Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. The Court has now certified the class Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. A related action challenges Northern Leasing's practice of unlawfully accessing and/or making adverse entries in credit reports of small businesspersons in order to coerce payments of unwarranted sums to Northern Leasing, even where small businesspersons did not have any account with Northern Leasing. Further, Plaintiffs assert that Northern Leasing's repeated, misleading, and deceptive dunning telephone calls violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York law. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, and upheld the claims. Aldrich v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.
A racketeering action against Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., alleging a racketeering scheme to intimidate out-of-state individuals into paying unwarranted sums of money by commencing fraudulent lawsuits in New York City Civil Court. Claiming to be financiers under alleged equipment finance leases, Northern Leasing brought actions seeking to recover relatively small sums, typically under $3,000. However, Northern Leasing was aware well before bringing such actions that the out-of-state individuals' signatures on such leases had been forged. Nevertheless, Northern Leasing commenced these small claims proceedings and even obtained fraudulent default judgments in order to harass, intimidate, and thereby extort money from out-of-state individuals through threats of expensive long distance litigation, of damage to credit rating, and/or entry of default judgments. The Court has denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, and upheld all the claims. Serin v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. Trial is scheduled for September 2010.
A class action against Citibank, challenging its willful, systematic refusal to implement Fannie Mae Guidelines concerning termination of private mortgage insurance. Fannie Mae, the government sponsored enterprise that is the bedrock of American residential mortgage transactions, has set standards, disseminated forms, and issued practice directives for decades. The Guidelines require private mortgage insurance termination if the LTV is 75% based on current value when a mortgage is 2 years old. Nevertheless, with respect to the mortgages it services, Citibank (a) refuses to terminate private mortgage insurance based on current value; (b) has made private mortgage insurance termination on the 2nd anniversary impossible; (c) issues a deceptive notice to borrowers concealing private mortgage insurance termination rights; and (d) routinely undervalues property in order to continue collecting private mortgage insurance. Further, Defendant calculates the 2-year requirement from the date of its own acquisition, not the date of the mortgage. Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of the class, that Defendant’s misconduct violated its contractual obligations, and Section 349, GBL. Plaintiff seeks classwide reliefs for compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory reliefs. Citibank has filed a motion to dismiss, which motion is now pending.
A class action arbitration on behalf of credit card holders against JP Morgan Chase asserting consumer fraud concerning interest rates on unpaid balances on credit cards. First, Chase entices consumers to open or continue credit card accounts with promises of a fixed interest rate on unpaid balances on purchases. Thereafter, it unilaterally increases the interest rate, and changes it to a variable rate. Second, Chase baits credit card consumers with teaser offers promising a low introductory interest rate on additional credit card debt and the consumer's pre existing (regular) interest rate thereafter. But after individual consumers accept the offer and increase their debt, Chase unilaterally and without notice raises the consumer's regular interest rates because now, the individual consumer's debt was allegedly "too high"! Third, Chase ignored consumers' dispute to charges, which, under federal law, need not be paid pending resolution. Instead, Chase unilaterally uses such non payment to charge late fees and raise interest rates. Fourth, Chase routinely reduces credit limits of consumers on their credit card accounts unilaterally and without advance notice, and does so in such manner and to such an extent as to intimidate consumers into abandoning their legitimate objection to charges. Fifth, Chase fails to inform consumers in advance of a proposed increase in interest rate based on the individual consumer's purportedly high debt or other information in such consumer's credit report. Thereby, consumers have no opportunity to avoid the increased interest rate, and are saddled with significant additional interest payments without advance notice. The case is in arbitration before JAMS.
Defending the ISKCON, Inc., temple in Freeport, Long Island, and prosecuting counterclaims on its behalf, in an action by the ISKCON Governing Body Commission Society of West Bengal, India, to takeover that temple. After a week-long evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the Society’s motion for a preliminary injunction for immediate takeover, which was largely upheld on appeal, Kelley v. Garuda. The ISKCON, Inc., temple in Freeport has asserted 7 counterclaims against the West Bengal Society for Passing Off, Fraudulent Interference With Goodwill; Conversion; Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Obligations; Aiding and Abetting Conversion; Concerted Action; and Civil Conspiracy. The counterclaims center on allegations that the West Bengal Society converted millions of dollars by misrepresenting itself as the ecclesiastical authority of the Krishna Consciousness movement, contrary to the founder's instructions and will. These millions rightfully belong to ISKCON, Inc., of Freeport, Long Island, which is the sole beneficiary under the trust founded by ISKCON founder, His Holiness Srila Prabhupada, which trust was called the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
