Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. Caramadre et al

Filing 135

MOTION for Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) with Supporting Memo by Joseph A. Caramadre, Estate Planning Resources, Inc., Raymour Radhakrishnan. Responses due by 4/5/2012 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, )
and FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants;
)
____________________________________ )
DEFENDANTS JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR RADHAKRISHNAN AND
ESTATE PLANNING RESOURCES, INC.’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b)
Defendants Joseph Caramadre, Raymour Radhakrishnan and Estate Planning Resources,
Inc. (collectively “Moving Defendants”) move this Court for entry of final judgment in their
favor in the matter of Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Caramadre et al., C.A. No.
09-470-S. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, all claims against
Moving Defendants have been adjudicated in their favor, and there is no just reason for delay in
entering final judgment. Accordingly, this Court should grant this motion and enter final
judgment for Moving Defendants.

Dated: Providence, Rhode Island
March 19, 2012
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
RADHAKRISHNAN and ESTATE PLANNING
RESOURCES, INC.,
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 March 19, 2012, 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. 50563759 

2

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, )
and FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants;
)
____________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS JOSEPH CARAMADRE,
RAYMOUR RADHAKRISHNAN AND ESTATE PLANNING RESOURCES, INC.’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b)
Defendants Joseph Caramadre, Raymour Radhakrishnan and Estate Planning Resources,
Inc. (“EPR”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) submit this memorandum of law in support of
their motion for entry of final judgment in their favor in the matter of Western Reserve Life
Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Caramadre et al., C.A. No. 09-470-S. All claims against Moving
Defendants have been adjudicated in their favor, and there is no just reason for delay in entering
final judgment. Accordingly, this Court should grant this motion and enter final judgment for
Moving Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This case is one of seven related cases brought by Plaintiffs Western Reserve Life
Assurance Co. of Ohio (“Western Reserve”) and Transamerica Life Insurance Company. As this
Court is well-aware, each case arises out of the purchase of annuities by an owner who was
unrelated to the annuitant other than through the creation of the annuity contract. Western

Reserve brought this case against Moving Defendants (referred to as Sponsors of the annuities by
the Court) as well as several other defendants allegedly involved in the transaction.1 This Court
dismissed some claims against EPR in the original complaint in an Opinion and Order dated June
2, 2010 (ECF No. 13 in Case No. 09-564). Western Reserve attempted to revive those claims
through an amended complaint and added Caramadre and Radhakrishnan as defendants. Moving
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended version of the complaint. This Court dismissed all
claims against Moving Defendants in the Opinion and Order date February 7, 2012 (ECF No.
132 in Case No. 09-470) addressed to that motion to dismiss. Accordingly, there are no existing
claims against Moving Defendants in this matter.
Final judgment should enter for Moving Defendants. There is no relationship between
the claims against the remaining defendants and the dismissed claims against Moving
Defendants that implicates concerns about the effect of a piecemeal appeal. On the other hand,
Moving Defendants will be faced with significant, inequitable, and unnecessary hardship if
judgment does not enter in their favor. Thus, the time has come to release Moving Defendants
from the burdens of this case and enter final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to “direct entry of a
final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties . . . if the court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A separate final
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) is appropriate when the court action from which judgment is
sought has “the requisite aspects of finality,” the issues remaining in the case do not are not
significantly interrelated, and the equities and efficiencies implicated by piecemeal review favor
1

Caramadre and Radhakrishnan were not named defendants in the original complaint, but were added as defendants
when Western Reserve filed the second amended complaint on September 7, 2010 – after the June 2, 2010 Opinion
and Order on the original motions to dismiss in this matter.

Doc. No. 50563763 

2

the entry of the proposed judgment. State St. Bank & Trust v. Brockrim, Inc., 87 F.3d 1487,
1489 (1st Cir. 1996). A judgment is final if it “dispose[s] of all the rights and liabilities of at
least one party on at least one claim” and “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
more for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Lee-Barnes v. Puerto Ven Quarry Corp.,
513 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting State St. Bank & Trust, 87 F.3d at 1489-90) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
A district court’s determination of whether to enter a 54(b) judgment is “necessarily casespecific and requires an assessment of the entire litigation[.]” Darr v. Muratore, 8 F.3d 854, 862
(1st Cir. 1993). A district court has broad discretion to enter a separate judgment pursuant to
Rule 54(b) so long as it considers the appropriate factors and explains its reasons for doing so.
Id. “[A] demonstration of clear injustice or hardship resulting from delaying a final judgment on
a particular question may justify certification.” Id. at 863. The First Circuit views the
considerations set forth in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364
(3d Cir. 1975) as “a helpful guide” for determining whether a separate Rule 54(b) judgment
should enter. Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts College, 843 F.2d 38, 43 n.3 (1st Cir. 1988). Those
considerations are:
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the
possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future
developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court
might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or
absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the
judgment sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,
economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of
competing claims, expense, and the like.
Allis-Chalmers Corp., 521 F.2d at 364 (internal footnotes omitted).

Doc. No. 50563763 

3

ARGUMENT
This dismissal of all claims against Moving Defendants in this case presents the
prototypical circumstance for entry of separate final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). First,
there is no question that the dismissal of the claims against Moving Defendants is final for Rule
54(b) purposes. The Third Amended Complaint in Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio
v. Caramadre et al., C.A. No. 09-470-S is the operative pleading. That pleading set forth ten
separate counts, only two of which Western Reserve directed at Moving Defendants: Count I
(Fraud in the Factum), and Count II (Fraudulent Inducement). In the February 7, 2012 Opinion
and Order this Court decided: “The fraudulent inducement counts against Defendants
Caramadre, Radhakrishnan, and EPR in all above-captioned cases are hereby DISMISSED. . . .
The fraud in the factum counts (pleaded in cases 09-470, 09-471, 09-473, 09-549, and 09-564)
against Defendants Caramadre, Radhakrishnan, EPR, Condit, Hanrahan, Maggiacomo, DK, and
Fortune are hereby DISMISSED.” See ECF No. 132 in Case No. 09-470 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it is clear that the February 7, 2012 Order completely disposes of all claims against
Moving Defendants and all that this Court has left to do with respect to those claims is to enter
judgment. See Lee-Barnes v. Puerto Ven Quarry Corp., 513 F.3d at 24.
All that remains in this case are: (1) a fraudulent inducement count against Defendants
Harrison Condit and Fortune Financial Services, Inc. (“Fortune Financial”), (2) a fraud in the
factum count against Lifemark, (3) a breach of contract count against Condit and Fortune
Financial, (4) a count for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Condit
and Fortune Financial, (5) a count for civil liability for crimes and offenses based on alleged
forgery against Condit and Fortune Financial, and (6) unjust enrichment against Condit and
Fortune Financial.

Doc. No. 50563763 

4

The remaining counts are unconnected to Moving Defendants. They arise from Western
Reserve’s relationships with Condit and Fortune Financial. This Court specifically dismissed the
fraudulent inducement count against Moving Defendants because Moving Defendants had no
dealings with Western Reserve and therefore could not have a duty to disclose that could give
rise to the fraudulent inducement claim. The Court dismissed the fraud in the factum claim
because it concluded that it was simply a copy of the fraudulent inducement claim in a different
costume. The fraudulent inducement claim survived as to Condit and Fortune Financial because
they had direct dealings and a business and contractual relationship with Western Reserve.
Moving Defendants had no involvement with those dealings or relationships. The only surviving
claims are against distinct parties that are clearly separate from and unrelated to the dismissed
claims previously asserted against Moving Defendants. There is simply no concern that entry of
final judgment for Moving Defendants and a subsequent appeal (if Transamerica decides to
pursue one) will create any problems with the orderly administration of this case.2
First, the separate and distinct nature of the claims obviates the danger that the outcome
of the appeal of a judgment in favor of Moving Defendants will interfere, or even truly impact,
the litigation of the claims remaining in the suit. The basis for the Court’s decision to dismiss
the fraudulent inducement claim against Moving Defendants and the fraud in the factum claim is
unrelated and inapplicable to the counts remaining in the case. Accordingly, the Court will not
need to revisit or reassess those legal conclusions in this litigation. Thus, reversal or affirmance
of this Court’s decision to dismiss the claims against Moving Defendants will not impact the
ongoing litigation. There is no danger that the case will be proceeding on parallel tracks in the
trial court and appellate court because there is no overlap of issues. For these same reasons,

2

The Court noted that the allegations made against Moving Defendants in connection with fraudulent inducement
claims might give rise to civil conspiracy liability. However, there is no claim of civil conspiracy in this case.

Doc. No. 50563763 

5

there is no possibility that the appellate court would face the same issues a second time in the
context of a later appeal of the remaining counts of this case. For all these reasons, the first three
factors set forth in Allis-Chalmers weigh in favor of entering final judgment for Caramadre,
Radhakrishnan and EPR.3
The fifth factor set forth in Allis-Chalmers instructs the Court to take into account any
other factors that should have an effect on the decision to enter a separate, partial final judgment.
In the context of this factor, the First Circuit’s acknowledgment that “a demonstration of clear
injustice or hardship resulting from delaying a final judgment on a particular question may
justify certification[]” lays to rest any doubt that final judgment should enter for Moving
Defendants in this case. See Darr, 8 F.3d at 862.
Caramadre and Radharkishnan are defendants in the criminal matter, U.S. v. Caramadre
et al., CR. No. 11-186-S as well as all seven of the related pending civil suits. EPR is now a
shell corporation that continues to exist only because it is a defendant in the seven civil suits.
The dismissal of the fraudulent inducement and fraud in the factum counts against them provides
Moving Defendants with a modicum of finality as to their lack of culpability with respect to the
allegations in Case No. 09-470. Entering final judgment in their favor will provide Moving
Defendants the opportunity to reach a final resolution of this case as it relates to them. This
Court’s dismissal of the counts in this case completely vindicates Moving Defendants as to the
claims in this case. Moving Defendants should be allowed that finality when, as here, there is no
interrelationship with the remaining claims and no harm in allowing the judgment.
The Moving Defendants prevailed on all of the claims asserted against them in this
lawsuit should not be required to idly stand-by in an indefinite holding pattern until the other
3

The fourth factor set forth in Allis-Chalmers is not implicated because there is no money judgment and there were
no counterclaims or cross claims asserted in this case, as this Court dismissed all counts against ADM before any
answers were filed.

Doc. No. 50563763 

6

unrelated parties have an opportunity to fully adjudicate their claims. The interests of judicial
economy militate in favor of the Court granting 54(b) judgment in favor of all parties. Entry of
final judgment will in fact streamline this litigation to the benefit of all parties as well as the
Court. If final judgment enters now and Western Reserve exercises its right of appeal, that
appeal will proceed while the remaining aspects of this case are stayed pending the resolution of
the criminal matter. The stay is likely to last for at least a year. Thus, it is possible, or perhaps
likely, that any appeal by Western Reserve would be resolved well before the remaining civil
claims are reached for trial, thus providing further support for the entry of final judgment for
Moving Defendants now.4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Moving Defendants respectfully request that the Court
enter separate and final judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 54(b).
Dated: Providence, Rhode Island
March 19, 2012
JOSEPH CARAMDRE, RAYMOUR
RADHAKRISHNAN AND ESTATE PLANNING
RESOURCES, INC.,
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]
4

Western Reserve will have an opportunity to litigate its appeal during the stay. If Western Reserve prevails on
appeal against the Moving Defendants, Western Reserve will have the opportunity to try this case against all
defendants in one proceeding as opposed to this Court trying this case twice in bifurcated trials. There is obviously
no impact on the remaining litigation if Western Reserve loses on appeal or decides not to appeal.

Doc. No. 50563763 

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 19, 2012, 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. 50563763 

8