Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. Caramadre et al

Filing 156

STATEMENT OF REASONS re: This Court's grant of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the F.R.C.P. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) C.A. No. 09-471 S
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING
)
RESOURCES, INC., ESTELLA RODRIGUES,)
EDWARD MAGGIACOMO, JR., LIFEMARK
)
SECURITIES CORP., and
)
PATRICK GARVEY,
)
)
Defendants;
)
___________________________________)
)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE
)
CO. OF OHIO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) 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;
)
___________________________________)
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

)
WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE
)
CO. OF OHIO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) C.A. No. 09-473 S
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE, RAYMOUR
)
RADHAKRISHNAN, ESTATE PLANNING
)
RESOURCES, INC., DK LLC, EDWARD
)
HANRAHAN, THE LEADERS GROUP, INC., )
and JASON VEVEIROS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)

STATEMENT OF REASONS
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
The

First

Circuit

Court

of

Appeals

has

requested

a

Statement of Reasons for this Court’s grant of judgment pursuant
to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the
above-captioned cases.
should suffice.

The following recitation of the record

Plaintiffs Transamerica Life Insurance Company

(“Transamerica”) and Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio
(“Western Reserve”) filed seven related suits against various
defendants alleging that the defendants improperly engaged in
“stranger-initiated annuity transactions.”

In thorough opinions

dated June 2, 2010, (Opinion and Order, C.A. No. 09-470, ECF No.

2

46), 1 and February 7, 2012, (Opinion and Order, C.A. No. 09-470,
ECF No. 132), this Court dismissed all claims against Defendant
Estella Rodrigues (with respect to case 09-471), Defendant ADM
Associates, LLC (“ADM”) (09-472) and Defendant DK LLC (“DK” and,
together

with

(09-473),

Rodrigues

while

and

retaining

ADM,

the

“Dismissed

the

claims

against

Defendants”)
all

other

defendants.
All seven of these suits were subsequently stayed by the
Court on March 2, 2012 (Stay Order, C.A. No. 09-470, ECF No.
134),

pending

resolution

of

criminal

Defendants Caramadre and Radhakrishnan.

proceedings

against

This stay was expected

to be in effect for at least a year, given the long preparation
time and expected lengthy trial. 2

1

On February 18, 2011, the Court “linked” all seven civil
cases for purposes of pretrial electronic filing only. (See
Consolidation Order, C.A. No. 09-470, ECF No. 86.) As a result,
all filings made after February 18, 2011 in each of the seven
cases, with the exception of amended complaints, can be found on
the electronic docket of case 09-470. Therefore, all references
to the docket are to case 09-470, unless otherwise noted.
2

On November 19, 2012, during the preparation of this
response
to
the
First
Circuit’s
request
for
additional
explanation, and following a lengthy jury selection process and
one week of trial, Defendants Caramadre and Radhakrishnan
unexpectedly changed their pleas to guilty on one count of wire
fraud and one count of conspiracy, with an agreement that all
remaining counts would be dismissed after sentencing.
(Plea
Agreements as to Joseph Caramadre and Raymour Radhakrishnan, Cr.
No. 11-186, ECF Nos. 105 and 106, respectively). To the extent
the Court’s sentence in the criminal case includes restitution,
which it no doubt will, many of the remaining claims in these
3

Because
Defendants

the
to

Court

wait

did

such

not

a

want

long

to

period

force
of

the

time

Dismissed
for

final

resolution when no valid claims were asserted against them, the
Court granted the motions to enter judgment pursuant to Rule
54(b) in favor of each of the Dismissed Defendants.

(Judgment

in favor of Estella Rodrigues against Transamerica, C.A. No. 09471,

ECF

No.

149;

Judgment

in

favor

of

ADM

against

Western

Reserve, C.A. No. 09-472, ECF No. 151; Judgment in favor of DK
against Western Reserve, C.A. No. 09-473, ECF No. 177.)
Rule 54(b) 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).

Courts consider

the appropriateness of an entry under Rule 54(b) in two parts first, whether the proceedings against the moving party has the
“requisite aspects of finality,” and second, whether there is

civil cases may be voluntarily dismissed by Transamerica and
Western Reserve.
Also on November 19, 2012, Plaintiffs filed motions under
Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss
claims against Defendants Edward Hanrahan and The Leaders Group,
Inc. (“Leaders”) in all applicable civil cases, including cases
09-472 and 09-473 of the above-captioned cases.
Plaintiffs
report that they have reached agreements with Hanrahan and
Leaders settling all claims involving these Defendants.
The Court plans to meet with all the remaining parties to
the civil suits in the coming weeks to discuss the status of
each case before lifting the stays.
4

any just reason for delay in dismissing the case.

Spiegel v.

Trs. of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 1988).
The

dismissal

of

the

claims

against

the

Dismissed

Defendants is plainly a “final” action for Rule 54(b) purposes.
A final action “must dispose of all the rights and liabilities
of at least one party as to at least one claim.”

State St. Bank

& Trust Co. v. Brockrim, Inc., 87 F.3d 1487, 1489 (1st Cir.
1996).

All

dismissed

in

claims
the

June

against
2,

the

2010

Dismissed

Opinion

and

Defendants
Order

and/or

were
the

February 7, 2012 Opinion and Order. 3
Because no just reason remained for delaying the entry of
judgment and relieving the Dismissed Defendants of the burden of
being named in a suit that included no claims against them, the
Court entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).

In determining

whether justice requires a final judgment, courts assess 1) “any
interrelationship or overlap among the various legal and factual
issues involved” in the claims for which judgment is entered and
3

The June 2, 2012 Opinion and Order dismissed the only two
claims against Rodrigues (Count I (Rescission) and Count II
(Declaratory Judgment)), the five claims against ADM (Count I
(Rescission),
Count
II
(Declaratory
Judgment),
Count
III
(Fraud), Count VII (Civil Liability for Crimes and Offenses) and
Count VIII (Civil Conspiracy)), and the five claims against DK
(Count I (Rescission), Count II (Declaratory Judgment), Count
III (Fraudulent Inducement), Count VII (Civil Liability for
Crimes and Offenses) and Count VIII (Civil Conspiracy)). These
dismissals were reaffirmed in the February 7, 2012 Opinion and
Order.
The Amended Complaint that was the subject of the
February 7, 2012 Opinion and Order added a claim against DK
(Fraud in the Factum), which was also dismissed.
5

the

remaining

implicated

by

claims,
the

and

2)

requested

Brockrim, 87 F.3d at 1489.

“any

equities

piecemeal

and

efficiencies

[appellate]

review.”

Litigation of the remaining claims

in this case does not implicate any Dismissed Defendant in any
way and a final judgment on the claims against the Dismissed
Defendants does not result in a judgment on any other claims.
There is no overlap of issues, so the appellate court will not
face issues a second time during the appeal of the remaining
claims.

Moreover,

as

discussed

above,

the

anticipated

long

delay in the resolution of the remaining claims was likely to
cause significant hardship to the Dismissed Defendants.

Failure

to enter judgment with respect to the Dismissed Defendants would
have required them to remain involved with this litigation for
over a year with no valid claims pending against them.

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: November 27, 2012

6