Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. Caramadre et al

Filing 124

Emergency MOTION to Stay , in Part with Supporting Memo by Joseph Caramadre, Raymour Radhakrishnan, Joseph A. Caramadre, ADM Associates, LLC, Estella Rodrigues. Responses due by 12/22/2011 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-00470-S -DLM et al.(Ramos, Adam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
____________________________________
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C.A. No. 09-470-S
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., HARRISON CONDIT, )
EMERGENCY MOTION
and FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants;
)
____________________________________ )
)
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C.A. No. 09-471-S
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., ESTELA
)
RODRIGUES, EDWARD MAGGIACOMO, )
JR., LIFEMARK SECURITIES CORP., and )
PATRICK GARVEY,
)
Defendants;
)
____________________________________ )
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
C.A. No. 09-472-S
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., ADM ASSOCIATES, )
LLC, EDWARD HANRAHAN, THE
)
LEADERS GROUP, INC., and CHARLES )
BUCKMAN,
)
Defendants;
)

____________________________________
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., DK LLC, EDWARD
)
HANRAHAN, THE LEADERS GROUP,
)
INC., and JASON VEVEIROS,
)
Defendants;
)
)
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., NATCO PRODUCTS )
CORP., EDWARD HANRAHAN, and THE )
LEADERS GROUP, INC.,
)
Defendants;
)
)
)
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LIFEMARK SECURITIES CORP., JOSEPH )
CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC. and EDWARD
)
MAGGIACOMO, JR.,
)
Defendants; and
)
)

Doc. No. 50456116

C.A. No. 09-473-S

C.A. No. 09-502-S

C.A. No. 09-549-S

2

____________________________________
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., HARRISON CONDIT, )
and FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants.
)
)

C.A. No. 09-564-S

EMERGENCY RENEWED MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OF
DEFENDANTS JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR RADHAKRISHNAN,
ESTELLA RODRIGUES AND ADM ASSOCIATES, LLC
Defendants Joseph Caramadre, Raymour Radhakrishnan, Estella Rodrigues and ADM
Associates, LLC (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) hereby renew the motion to stay the
proceedings in these matters, in part. Moving Defendants request the Court to stay all
proceedings in these related matters pending the resolution of the related criminal matter, United
States v. Caramadre et al., CR No. 11-186. Moving Defendants also request that the Court
proceed to decide the pending motions to dismiss in these matters,1 and, if the Court dismisses
claims as a result of those motions, allow any defendant to seek entry of final judgment on any
dismissed claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The reasons the Court should grant this
requested relief are set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law.

1

The pending motions to dismiss are: Document Nos. 94, 95, 96 in C.A. No. 09-470-S-DLM, Document Nos. 92,
93, 94 in C.A. No. 09-471-S-DLM, Document Nos. 95, 97, 98 in C.A. No. 09-472-S-DLM, Document Nos. 118,
121, 122 in C.A. No. 09-473-S -DLM, Document Nos. 81, 83, 84 in C.A. No. 09-502-S-DLM, Document Nos. 68,
69, 70 in C.A. No. 09-549-S-DLM, and Document Nos. 62, 63, 64 in C.A. No. 09-564-S-DLM.

Doc. No. 50456116

3

Dated: Providence, Rhode Island
December 5, 2011
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTELLA RODRIGUES
AND ADM ASSOCIATES, LLC,
By their Attorneys,

/s/ Adam M. Ramos____________
Robert G. Flanders, Jr. (# 1785)
Adam M. Ramos (#7591)
HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
50 Kennedy Plaza, Suite 1500
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 5, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court’s electronic filing as indicated
on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court’s CM/ECF
system.

/s/ Adam M. Ramos

Doc. No. 50456116

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
____________________________________
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C.A. No. 09-470-S
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., HARRISON CONDIT, )
EMERGENCY MOTION
and FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants;
)
____________________________________ )
)
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C.A. No. 09-471-S
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., ESTELA
)
RODRIGUES, EDWARD MAGGIACOMO, )
JR., LIFEMARK SECURITIES CORP., and )
PATRICK GARVEY,
)
Defendants;
)
____________________________________ )
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
C.A. No. 09-472-S
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., ADM ASSOCIATES, )
LLC, EDWARD HANRAHAN, THE
)
LEADERS GROUP, INC., and CHARLES )
BUCKMAN,
)
Defendants;
)

____________________________________
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., DK LLC, EDWARD
)
HANRAHAN, THE LEADERS GROUP,
)
INC., and JASON VEVEIROS,
)
Defendants;
)
)
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., NATCO PRODUCTS )
CORP., EDWARD HANRAHAN, and THE )
LEADERS GROUP, INC.,
)
Defendants;
)
)
)
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LIFEMARK SECURITIES CORP., JOSEPH )
CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC. and EDWARD
)
MAGGIACOMO, JR.,
)
Defendants; and
)
)

Doc. No. 50456116

C.A. No. 09-473-S

C.A. No. 09-502-S

C.A. No. 09-549-S

2

____________________________________
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE )
CO. OF OHIO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING )
RESOURCES, INC., HARRISON CONDIT, )
and FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants.
)
)

C.A. No. 09-564-S

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
EMERGENCY RENEWED MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OF
DEFENDANTS JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR RADHAKRISHNAN,
ESTELLA RODRIGUES AND ADM ASSOCIATES, LLC
Defendants Joseph Caramadre, Raymour Radhakrishnan, Estella Rodrigues and ADM
Associates, LLC (“ADM”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) submit this memorandum of law
in support of their emergency renewed motion for a partial stay of the proceedings in these
related civil matters pending resolution of the related criminal matter United States v. Caramadre
et al., CR No. 11-186. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should stay the proceedings
pending the outcome of the related criminal proceedings.
I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants Caramadre and Radhakrishnan, along with Defendants Edward Hanrahan,

Edward Maggiacomo, Jr. and Harrison Condit, previously moved this Court to stay these seven
related civil matters.1 One of the bases for the previous motions to stay was the pendency of a

1

Moving Defendants hereby incorporate the arguments set forth in the Consolidated Memorandum of Law in
Support of Defendants Joseph A. Caramadre, Edward Hanrahan, Raymour Radhakrishnan. Edward Maggiacomo,
and Harrison Condit’s Motions to Stay. See, e.g., Case 1:09-cv-00471-S-DLM, Document 48-1. All the arguments
as to why the Court should stay the case during the pendency of the grand jury investigation apply with even greater
force now that the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island issued an indictment against the Mr.
Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan. The Consolidated Memorandum of Law is attached as Exhibit A.

Doc. No. 50456116

3

grand jury investigation related to these civil proceedings. The Court never decided those
motions to stay. Instead, the Court urged the parties to reach an agreement on how to proceed.
Consequently, the parties agreed to the Initial Case Management Order entered by this Court on
September 13, 2010. The Court entered an order finding the motions to stay moot on May 31,
2011.
The purpose of the Initial Case Management Order was to protect the Mr. Caramadre and
Mr. Radhakrishnan, as well as other potential targets of the criminal investigation, against
prejudice to their constitutional rights in the criminal proceeding because of the litigation of the
civil proceeding. At the time the Court entered the Initial Case Management Order, the parties
and the Court contemplated that the issuance of an indictment would be cause to revisit whether
the Court should stay the civil matters.
On November 17, 2011, the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island
issued an indictment against the Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan. They are now
defendants in United States v. Caramadre et al., CR No. 11-186. Their ability to defend
themselves in the criminal prosecution will be unfairly compromised if the Court does not stay
these civil proceedings during the pendency of the criminal action. These civil actions will
impose onerous practical burdens on Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan and undermine their
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Allowing the civil lawsuits to proceed also will undermine the public interest in effective
prosecution and the protection of the rights of criminal defendants generally. Considerations of
judicial convenience and efficiency also warrant the granting of a stay. Finally, the Plaintiff’s
interest in the resolution of this civil case also cuts in favor of granting the stay. Indeed, staying

Doc. No. 50456116

4

this action in deference to the ongoing criminal proceedings may facilitate later discovery of key
defense witnesses and open a swifter path to resolution.
The Court, however, should not stay its consideration of the pending motions to dismiss.
Moreover, if the Court’s decision on the pending motions to dismiss results in the dismissal of
claims against only some of the defendants, the Court also should not stay the ability of those
defendants to pursue final judgment on those claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Interests
of justice and fairness call for final resolution of these matters with regard to defendants against
whom plaintiffs have not asserted a legally cognizable claim.
Accordingly, the Moving Defendants renew their request to this Court that it stay the
civil proceedings, in part, until the criminal matter is resolved.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The civil complaints allege that the Moving Defendants (along with others) acted

improperly in connection with the purchase of annuities from Plaintiffs Western Reserve Life
Assurance Company of Ohio (“WRL”) and Transamerica Life Assurance Company (“TLA”).
Specifically, WRL and TLA allege that Defendants Caramadre and Radhakrishnan acted
fraudulently because they submitted annuity applications that did not disclose that the annuitants
were terminally ill and that the beneficiaries of the annuities had no pre-existing relationship
with the annuitants. On November 17, 2011, the United States Attorney for the District of
Rhode Island (the “United States”) filed a criminal indictment against Defendants Caramadre
and Radhakrishnan. The factual allegations in the indictment are, in part, practically identical to
the factual allegations in support of the claims of WRL and TLA in these civil suits. See, e.g.,
Indictment at ¶¶ 27-46.

Doc. No. 50456116

5

III.

ARGUMENT
Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan undeniably face an enormous and unfair burden if

forced to defend both the criminal indictment and the civil actions simultaneously. They
correctly seek to focus their limited resources on defense of the criminal charges against them.
As such, Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan should not be saddled with the burden of
managing the civil defense concurrently with the criminal defense. Moreover, the Court also
should stay the civil proceedings against the other defendants. The alleged conduct of all the
other defendants is inextricably intertwined with the alleged conduct of Mr. Caramadre and Mr.
Radhakrishnan. It would be impossible to proceed at all with the civil matters without unfairly
burdening Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan.
In particular, the Court recently ordered Defendant Estate Planning Resources (“EPR”) to
answer interrogatories propounded by the plaintiffs in each of these matters. The answers to
those interrogatories are due on December 12, 2011. The subject matter of those interrogatories
relates directly to subject matter of the criminal indictment. Responses to those interrogatories
by EPR will unfairly prejudice Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan by granting the
prosecution in the criminal matter access to discovery that it might otherwise not be able to
obtain in the criminal proceeding. In the face of the criminal indictment, the Mr. Caramadre and
Mr. Radhakrishnan understandably are focused on their criminal defense and should not be
burdened with (1) litigating the civil actions in their own right, (2) assisting with the litigation of
the civil actions by other parties that rely upon them, or (3) assessing and analyzing how the
actions of the civil litigation affect and interfere with the mounting of their criminal defense.
Moreover, a stay of the civil proceedings would serve to conserve judicial resources. The
allegations in the indictment are nearly identical to the allegations in the civil complaints. It is

Doc. No. 50456116

6

likely that resolution of the criminal proceeding will be dispositive of at least some of the claims
in the civil cases, both for the Moving Defendants and the other defendants. Proceeding down
dual litigation paths serves to waste not only the Moving Defendants’ resources, but the
resources of the Court as well.
The “court . . . has the "inherent discretionary authority to stay cases" to manage its
docket in the interest of justice and efficiency. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Currie Enterprises,
142 F.R.D. 8, 11 (D. Mass. 1991). “It is clear . . . that this power is properly exercised when the
ends of justice are threatened by the concurrent development of related criminal and civil
proceedings.” United States v. Hugo Key & Son, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 656, 657 (D.R.I. 1987). In
Hugo Key & Son, the Court ordered a stay of civil proceedings during the pendency of a related
criminal prosecution. Id. at 658-59. The Court noted that such a result is called for when the
“interests of justice seem[] to require such action[.]” Id. To reach this conclusion, the Court
recognized the harm that could result because of the “broad scope and liberal interpretation of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[.]” Id. at 658. See also Mainelli v. United States, 611 F.
Supp. 606, 615 (D.R.I. 1985) (noting that the risk of prejudice to a defendant is particularly high
when the civil and criminal actions are in regard to the same matter). Other courts also recognize
the inherent tension created when criminal and civil matters predicated on the same alleged
conduct proceed simultaneously. See Eastwood v. United States, No. 2:06-cv-164, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 106777, *4-*5 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2008) (“The similarity of the issues underlying
the civil and criminal actions is considered the most important threshold issue.”); Turley v.
United States, No. 02-4066-CV-C-NKL, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16964, at *10 (W.D. Mo. Aug.
22, 2002) (quoting White v. Mapco Gas Products, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 498, 502 (E.D. Ark. 1987))
(When it is likely that “the ‘resolution of the related criminal matter may eliminate much of the

Doc. No. 50456116

7

Court’s work in the civil action’ by simplifying the issues” it makes sense to grant a stay to
conserve judicial resources.) Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (“A stay of
civil proceedings is most likely to be granted where the civil and criminal actions involve the
same subject matter[.]”)
The circumstances strongly support the granting of a stay now that the United States
issued an indictment against Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan. They plainly face hardship
if forced to defend the criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously. Defense of the civil and
criminal complaints simultaneously will unfairly stretch their resources. The need to participate
in the defense of the civil matters will divert their attention away from the defense of the
criminal charges. A stay is particularly appropriate given the similarity of the allegations that
form the basis of the proceedings.
The interests of fairness and justice, however, counsel against a stay of the Court’s
consideration of the pending motions to dismiss. The Court also should not stay the ability of
any defendant to seek a Rule 54(b) final judgment on any dismissed claim. Some defendants,
including Ms. Rodrigues and ADM, have been denied access to funds in certain investment
accounts during the pendency of these civil actions. Ms. Rodrigues and ADM cannot regain
access to these funds until they receive final judgment in their favor on the claims asserted
against them.
This Court previously dismissed all claims against Ms. Rodrigues and ADM before
allowing the amended complaints. The reassertion of these claims in the amended complaints
did not change their factual basis or nature.2 The pending motions to dismiss likely will result in

2

The claims against Ms. Rodrigues are part of C.A. No. 09-471-S-DLM. The claims against ADM are part of C.A.
No. 09-472-S-DLM.

Doc. No. 50456116

8

the dismissal of these claims.3 The Court should allow Ms. Rodrigues and ADM, as well as any
other defendant in favor of whom the Court dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims, to obtain final
resolution of the claims that have no cognizable legal basis.
This result is not only fair and just; it also promotes judicial economy. Resolution of the
motions to dismiss pares down the subject matter of the civil proceedings so that the scope of the
case will be resolved before it is restarted upon the resolution of the criminal matter.
IV.

REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY CONSIDERATION
Moving Defendants seek emergency consideration of this motion because of the pending

December 12, 2011 deadline for EPR to answer plaintiffs’ interrogatories. As explained herein,
Mr. Caramadre and Mr. Radhakrishnan face unfair prejudice if EPR answers those
interrogatories. The regular briefing schedule for this motion would not permit resolution before
the deadline for EPR’s responses. If the Court grants the relief requested in this motion, it would
stay EPR’s obligation to provide answers to those interrogatories. Accordingly, Moving
Defendants request that the Court rule on this motion on an emergency basis before December
12, 2011.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Moving Defendants respectfully request that the Court

grant this renewed motion for a partial stay and order that the proceedings in the seven related
civil cases are stayed until resolution of the criminal charges against Mr. Caramadre and Mr.
Radhakrishnan. The Moving Defendants further request that the Court exempt its consideration
of the pending motions to dismiss from the stay, as well as any motion for final judgment on any
dismissed claim.
3

The Court also previously dismissed a number of other claims. Like Ms. Rodrigues and ADM, the defendants
against whom Plaintiffs asserted those claims also should be permitted to obtain final resolution notwithstanding the
need to stay the remainder of the matters.

Doc. No. 50456116

9

Dated: Providence, Rhode Island
December 5, 2011
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTELLA RODRIGUES
AND ADM ASSOCIATES, LLC,
By their Attorneys,

/s/ Adam M. Ramos____________
Robert G. Flanders, Jr. (# 1785)
Adam M. Ramos (#7591)
HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
50 Kennedy Plaza, Suite 1500
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 5, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court’s electronic filing as indicated
on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court’s CM/ECF
system.

/s/ Adam M. Ramos

Doc. No. 50456116

10