Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Conreal LLC et al

Filing 306

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 298 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 303 Motion for Hearing. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 9/23/2020. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE CO. )
OF OHIO, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 09-470 WES
)
JOSEPH A. CARAMADRE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
__________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
This marks the end of a decade-old dispute in which two
insurance companies, Plaintiffs Western Reserve Life Assurance
Co.

of

Ohio

(“WRL”)

(“Transamerica”)

sued

and

Transamerica

Defendants

Joseph

Life

Insurance

Company

A.

Caramadre,

Raymour

Radhakrishnan, and ADM Associates, LLC (“ADM”) 1 for a complex
insurance fraud scheme that previously has been described in
detail.

See, e.g., W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. ADM

Assocs., LLC, 737 F.3d 135, 136-39 (1st Cir. 2013).
Court

are

Plaintiffs’

Motion

for

Entry

of

Before the

Final

Summary

Plaintiffs seek entry of judgment against Defendants on
Counts V, VI, and XVI, as described below.
All claims against
all other defendants to the Amended Consolidated Complaint have
been resolved. See Pls.’ Mot. for Entry of Final Summ. J. 1-2 &
n.1, ECF No. 298; Pls.’ Mot. to Dismiss All Unresolved Claims,
ECF No. 300; June 30, 2020, Minute Entry (reflecting that the
Court granted ECF No. 300 from the bench).
1

Judgment, ECF No. 298, and Defendant Joseph A. Caramadre and
Defendant ADM Associates LLC’s Motion to Request a Hearing to
Clarify

Damages

Amount

Sought

by

Plaintiffs

(“Defs.’ Mot. to Request a Hr’g”), ECF No. 303.

in

Document

298

For the reasons

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final
Summary

Judgment,

and

GRANTS

IN

PART

Defendants’

Motion

to

Request a Hearing to the extent that the Court held a hearing on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on June 30, 2020, and
DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Request a Hearing to the
extent it opposes the amount of damages awarded here.
I.

Background
This

civil

case

was

Defendants,

along

Subsequently,

Defendants

filed

with

in

2009

several

Caramadre

against

additional

and

the

present

defendants.

Radhakrishnan

were

all

together indicted on sixty-six counts of wire fraud, mail fraud,
conspiracy,

identity

fraud,

aggravated

identity

theft,

money

laundering, and witness tampering, see Indictment, ECF No. 1 in
Cr. No. 11-186, in connection with the conduct underlying the
claims in this civil case, viz., conspiring “to make millions of
dollars

by

securing

the

identities

of

terminally-ill

people

through material misrepresentations and omissions to be used to
purchase

variable

benefit features.”

annuities

and

corporate

bonds

with

death-

United States v. Caramadre, 882 F. Supp. 2d

2

302, 304 (D.R.I. 2012).

In 2013, Defendants pleaded guilty and

were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit offenses
against the United States.
Cr. No. 11-186.
evidentiary

See ECF Nos. 223, 224, 247, 248 in

The following year, after holding a three-day

hearing,

the

Court

ordered

Caramadre

and

Radhakrishnan to pay a total of $2,012,371.49 in restitution to
Plaintiffs

WRL

and

Transamerica.

See

United

States

v.

Caramadre, No. CR No. 11-186 S, 2014 WL 409336, at *1, App’x 1 &
2 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2014), aff’d, 807 F.3d 359 (1st Cir. 2015). 2
Specifically, the restitution order directs Radhakrishnan and/or
Caramadre

to

pay

restitution

to

Plaintiffs

as

follows:

$1,102,464.28 jointly and severally to WRL; $805,926.18 jointly
and

severally

to

Transamerica;

individually to Transamerica.
In

2017,

in

this

civil

and

$103,981.03

by

Caramadre

See id.
case,

the

Court

granted

summary

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Counts IV (RICO violations)
and

V

(civil

liability

pursuant

to

R.I.

Gen.

Laws

§

9-1-2)

against Caramadre and Radhakrishnan, as well as on Count XIII
(reverse piecing the corporate veil).

Transamerica Life Ins.

Co. v. Caramadre, C.A. No. 09-470 S, 2017 WL 752145, at *1-4
(D.R.I.

Feb.

27,

2017).

This

Court

also

granted

summary

See Gov’t Ex. 25 to Restitution Hr’g (Summ. of Losses from
Variable Annuities), Vol. II, 31:10-20 (Oct. 9, 2013), in Cr.
No. 11-186.
2

3

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Defendants’ counterclaims for
breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of duty of good
faith

and

fair

dealing,

declaratory

infliction of emotional distress.

judgment,

and

negligent

Id. at *4-7.

Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on damages, asking
the Court to award damages consistent with the amount of the
restitution order in Defendants Caramadre’s and Radhakrishnan’s
related criminal cases.

See generally Pls.’ Mot. for Entry of

Final Summ. J., ECF No. 298.
II.

Legal Standard
On a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes “the

record

in

resolv[es]

the
all

light

most

reasonable

favorable

inferences

to
in

the

that

nonmovant
party’s

and

favor.”

Baum-Holland v. Hilton El Con Mgmt., LLC, 964 F.3d 77, 87 (1st
Cir. 2020).

“Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving

party shows that ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.’”

Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

A court may grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment
“if the moving party is entitled to judgment on the merits of
the

motion,

viewed

in

light

of

Rule

56.”

Pearson

v.

Hillsborough Cty. Dep’t of Corr., No. CIV. 99-584-JD, 2001 WL
536079, at *1 (D.N.H. May 21, 2001) (citing Carmona v. Toledo,

4

215 F.3d 124, 134 n.9 (1st Cir. 2000)).

When a motion for

summary judgment stands unopposed, the moving party’s undisputed
facts, where properly supported, are deemed admitted.

D.R.I. LR

Cv 56(a)(3); see also Campney v. Superintendent, Bare Hill Corr.
Facility, Civil No. 06-cv-297-JD, 2010 WL 520908, at *1 (D.N.H.
Feb. 10, 2010).

The Court must then “consider the claims based

on the record, taking the uncontested facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Campney, 2010 WL 520908, at

*1 (citing Sanchez–Figueroa v. Panco Popular de P.R., 527 F.3d
209, 212 (1st Cir. 2008)).
III. Discussion
A.

Damages Award

In

response

to

Plaintiffs’

Motion

for

Entry

of

Final

Summary Judgment, Defendant Caramadre — purportedly on behalf of
ADM and himself — requested a hearing to clarify damages.

See

Defs.’

the

Mot.

restitution

to
order

Request

a

reflects

Hr’g
an

1.

He

inaccurate

contends
measure

that
of

damages

because it does not take into account offsets to the losses
related

to

the

Charles

Plaintiffs wrongly withheld.

Buckman
Id.

annuity,

which

he

avers

As the Court understands the

argument, Caramadre believes that, had he and ADM had control
over

the

Charles

Buckman

annuity

and

subaccount

allocations

during the pendency of this case, his investment prowess would

5

have offset these damages and allowed ADM to retain an attorney.
Id.
Caramadre’s arguments gain no traction.

First, the Court’s

Local Rules prohibit ADM — an LLC — from representing itself pro
se.

See

D.R.I.

LR

Gen

205(a)(3).

disbarred attorney, represent ADM.

Nor

may

Caramadre,

a

See D.R.I. LR Gen 201(a).

Second, ADM is the only entity or person with a claim to the
Buckman annuity; Caramadre has no claim to it.

Transamerica

Life Ins. Co., 2017 WL 752145, at *5 (“Caramadre does not have
any

contractual

rights

with

respect

to

the

Charles

Buckman

annuity and cannot bring any claims against WRL with respect to
this annuity.”).

Lastly, this Court previously granted summary

judgment against Caramadre’s and ADM’s counterclaims relating to
the

Charles

Buckman

annuity.

Id.

at

*4-7.

Caramadre’s

arguments are therefore neither properly raised on ADM’s behalf,
nor persuasive in any event.
In calculating the proper damages award, the Court notes
that Defendants have failed to file a responsive statement of
disputed

facts,

and

thus

the

facts

set

forth

in

Plaintiffs’

Statement of Undisputed Material Facts are deemed admitted where
supported by competent evidence.
The

Court

concludes

See D.R.I. LR Cv 56(a)(3).

that,

as

a

result

of

Defendants’

liability under Counts IV, V, and XIII, see Transamerica Life

6

Ins. Co., 2017 WL 752145, at *1-4 (granting summary judgment for
Plaintiffs on Counts IV, V, and XIII), WRL incurred damages of
$1,102,464.28, and Transamerica incurred damages of $909,907.21.
See Gov’t

Ex.

25

(Summ.

of

Losses

from

Variable

Annuities),

Restitution Hr’g, Vol. II, 31:10-20 (Oct. 9, 2013), in Cr. No.
11-186; see also Caramadre, 2014 WL 409336, at App’x 1 & 2
(ordering restitution to WRL and Transamerica in these amounts).
In

addition

to

the

competent

evidence

supporting

the

finding in the criminal restitution order, Plaintiffs are also
entitled to damages from Caramadre and Radhakrishnan, “barring
any

applicable

criminal
estoppel.

defenses”,

restitution

order

in

the

under

amount
the

set

doctrine

forth
of

in

their

collateral

See New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension

Fund v. Forde, No. 11 Civ. 5474(LAP)(GWG), 2018 WL 2455437, at
*15 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018), report and recommendation adopted
as modified, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that
judicial findings of fact have no evidentiary value, but may be
used under the doctrine of collateral estoppel to award damages
in the amount equal to the restitution award in related RICO
criminal case); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3664(l) (“A conviction of a
defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to an
order of restitution shall estop the defendant from denying the
essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent Federal

7

civil proceeding . . . brought by the victim.”); Connell v. BRK
Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 10-12101-TSH, 2013 WL 3989649, at *5 n.2
(D.

Mass.

Aug.

1,

2013)

(“‘Non-mutual’

offensive

collateral

estoppel occurs when a plaintiff seeks to prevent a defendant
from

relitigating

unsuccessfully

an

issue

litigated

which

against

that

a

defendant

different

previously

party.”

(citing

Acevedo–Garcia v. Monroig, 351 F.3d 547, 573 (1st Cir. 2003)).
B.

Treble Damages, Costs, and Attorneys’ Fees

18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) states that “[a]ny person injured in
his business or property by reason of a violation of section
1962 of this chapter . . . shall recover threefold the damages
he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable
attorney’s

fee

.

.

.

.”

The

Court

previously

held

that

Caramadre and Radhakrishnan violated sections 1962(c) and (d) by
engaging in a multi-year pattern of racketeering activity, see
Transamerica

Life

Ins.

Co.,

2017

WL

752145,

at

*3,

and

accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages, costs,
and attorneys’ fees under § 1964(c).
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

Motion for Entry of Final Summary Judgment, ECF No. 298; and
GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Request a Hearing to the
extent that the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for

8

Summary

Judgment

on

June

30,

2020,

and

DENIES

IN

PART

Defendants’ Motion to Request a Hearing to the extent it opposes
the amount of damages awarded herein, ECF No. 303.

Plaintiffs

are entitled to final judgment on Counts V, VI, and XVI of the
Amended Consolidated Complaint in the following amounts:
•

In favor of WRL and against Caramadre, Radhakrishnan,
and ADM, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$3,307,392.84;

•

In favor of Transamerica and against Caramadre,
Radhakrishnan, and ADM, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $2,417,778.54; and

•

In favor of Transamerica and against Caramadre and
ADM,
jointly
and
severally,
in
the
amount
of
$311,943.09.

Plaintiffs may seek costs and/or attorneys’ fees in accordance
with D.R.I. Local Rules Cv. 54 and 54.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: September 23, 2020

9