This letter requests a briefing schedule for a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel. The letter argues that sanctions are warranted because the plaintiffs' claims against Unitransfer USA lack evidentiary support and a reasonable factual basis. Specifically, the letter asserts there is no evidence that Unitransfer entered into any unlawful agreements, collected fees from class members, made misrepresentations, was unjustly enriched, conducted business in California, or intended to steal funds as required for the civil theft claim. The letter contends the plaintiffs failed to conduct a proper factual inquiry before filing their claims against Unitransfer.
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsTerry81
Brayshaw V. Annette Garrett, Federal Lawsuit Against Her Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals on the internet against the First Amendment and Constitutional Rights of Rob Brayshaw. Brayshaw has a Federal Court order against this crooked and dirty cop in which he has the right to criticize and publish her public and personal information regarding her various fraud and corruption working as a dirty police officer.
Rob Brayshaw Fights With Dream Defenders v._DesantisTerry81
Rob Brayshaw is case cited in the fight with the Dream Defenders and The ACLU against Governor Ron Desantis for the Unconstitutional and illegal HB1 Bill against blacks and minorities for free speech and free press protected for legal and peaceful protests.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitTerry81
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal and Criminal DAVID Searches were conducted to the Brayshaws illegally for exposing the dumb and dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore at The Tallahassee Police Department. Various Civil and Constitutional Rights Violations have been exposed for illegal actions of Tallahassee Police Officers especially for using their mafia tactics of free speech and free press suppression of illegal censorships conducted.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, 2010 - Landmark Case Striking Down The 1972...Terry81
The Landmark Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This federal case made Rob Brayshaw an American Civil Rights Hero Against Dumb and Dirty Cops Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore who were very crooked and dishonest. The Florida Statute from 1972 known as "The Dildo Law" or "Dilmore's Law" was struck down as Unconstitutional on it's face and illegally applied by false police reports as there was no threat. Tallahassee cops attempted to illegally silence and use illegal censorships for exposing them as crooked police officers.
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsTerry81
Brayshaw V. Annette Garrett, Federal Lawsuit Against Her Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals on the internet against the First Amendment and Constitutional Rights of Rob Brayshaw. Brayshaw has a Federal Court order against this crooked and dirty cop in which he has the right to criticize and publish her public and personal information regarding her various fraud and corruption working as a dirty police officer.
Rob Brayshaw Fights With Dream Defenders v._DesantisTerry81
Rob Brayshaw is case cited in the fight with the Dream Defenders and The ACLU against Governor Ron Desantis for the Unconstitutional and illegal HB1 Bill against blacks and minorities for free speech and free press protected for legal and peaceful protests.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitTerry81
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal and Criminal DAVID Searches were conducted to the Brayshaws illegally for exposing the dumb and dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore at The Tallahassee Police Department. Various Civil and Constitutional Rights Violations have been exposed for illegal actions of Tallahassee Police Officers especially for using their mafia tactics of free speech and free press suppression of illegal censorships conducted.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, 2010 - Landmark Case Striking Down The 1972...Terry81
The Landmark Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This federal case made Rob Brayshaw an American Civil Rights Hero Against Dumb and Dirty Cops Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore who were very crooked and dishonest. The Florida Statute from 1972 known as "The Dildo Law" or "Dilmore's Law" was struck down as Unconstitutional on it's face and illegally applied by false police reports as there was no threat. Tallahassee cops attempted to illegally silence and use illegal censorships for exposing them as crooked police officers.
The Landmark Federal Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This is the federal court order protecting the First Amendment Rights Of Our U.S. Constitution Against Dumb and Dirty Police Officers, Malicious Prosecutors and Corrupt Judges. The 1972 Florida Statute Was Struck Down as Unconstitutional on its face and as illegally applied by dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore with their falsely written police reports.
The Landmark Federal Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This is the federal court order protecting the First Amendment Rights Of Our U.S. Constitution Against Dumb and Dirty Police Officers, Malicious Prosecutors and Corrupt Judges. The 1972 Florida Statute Was Struck Down as Unconstitutional on its face and as illegally applied by dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore with their falsely written police reports.
RK Associates, Raanan Katz Were Alleged In Unlawful Ejectment In Miamirkcenters
Defendants do not dispute, that security guards threw Plaintiffs off the property and that RK Associates and MWI changed the locks on the bank branch's office doors. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege conversion of their remaining personal property by RK Associates and MWI after they were escorted from the premises. Judging from the record, the Court finds that there is a possibility that Plaintiffs can establish a cause of action against the resident defendant. Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1287. At the very least, Plaintiffs have a possibility of stating a viable cause of action against the landlord RK Associates for conversion of their equipment and for unlawful ejectment. Defendants themselves note that joinder is deemed legitimate when such possibility exists.
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
04062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
01062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
1. Kieran Corcoran
212.763.8491 DIRECT
212.763.8304 DIRECT FAX
kieran.corcoran@stinson.com
CORE/3515246.0002/151681409.1
S T I N S O N . C O M
1 3 2 5 A V E N U E O F T H E A M E R I C A S , 2 7 T H F L O O R • N E W Y O R K , N Y 1 0 0 1 9
2 1 2 . 7 6 3 . 8 4 9 1 M A I N • 2 1 2 . 7 6 3 . 8 3 0 4 F A X
March 28, 2019
Via ECF
Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall
United States District Court Judge
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: Odilon S. Celestin, et. al. v. Michel Joseph Martelly, et. al., 18-CV-7340-LDH-JO;
Unitransfer USA, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions pursuant to FRCP 11
Your Honor:
Pursuant to your Individual Practices, Defendant Unitransfer USA, Inc. (“Unitransfer”) requests
a briefing schedule regarding its motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, which was served on
plaintiffs’ counsel on March 6, 2019. The safe harbor period has now expired, and plaintiffs have failed
to take any corrective action. Rule 11 sanctions are proper when a party files a pleading that has no
reasonable factual basis or a party files a pleading in bad faith for an improper purpose.1
Rule 11 imposes
an affirmative duty on counsel to make some pre-filing inquiry into both the facts and the law so that
counsel can be in a position to certify that a complaint is well grounded in both fact and law.2
In this
instance, plaintiffs’ counsel have failed in that duty as there is no evidentiary support that: (1) Unitransfer
ever entered into any unlawful agreements, (2) Unitransfer ever collected fees from the purported class
members, (3) Unitransfer made any material misrepresentations to induce the payment of fees, (4)
Unitransfer was enriched by the collection of the fees, (5) Unitransfer conducts business in California to
substantiate a violation of California state law, or (6) plaintiffs did not consent to paying the fees, as is
required for a claim under Florida’s Civil Theft Statute.
No evidence supporting an unlawful agreement: Each claim against Unitransfer relies on
Unitransfer entering into an unlawful agreement with other defendants in violation of the Sherman Act.34
Plaintiffs have no evidence of Unitransfer entering into any agreement with other defendants, let alone
an agreement with an unlawful objective. A reasonable inquiry, would have revealed the absence of any
evidence of Unitransfer entering into an agreement with an unlawful objective. Tellingly, plaintiffs do
not even allege any facts in their amended complaint to support their conclusory allegations that
Unitransfer entered into an unlawful agreement. It is unclear whether plaintiffs allege (1) Unitransfer
had an agreement with Haiti, or (2) the agreement was among Unitransfer, the other money transfer
1
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 389-90 (1990); see also Angrisani v. City of New York, 639 F. Supp. 1326
(E.D.N.Y. 1986).
2
See ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 579 F.3d 143, 150 (2d Cir. 2009.
3
Liebers v. Moore Pretzel Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5137, *12-13 (Mar. 10, 1995 E.D.N.Y.) (“[T]o sustain a claim of an
unlawful agreement [in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act], the evidence must ‘tend[] to exclude the possibility’ that
the defendant had any reason for the action complained of, other than an unlawful objective.”) (quoting Monsanto Co. v.
Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 768 (1984)).
4
D.E. 15, ¶¶ 1, 2, 26, and 32.
2. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall
March 28, 2019
Page 2
CORE/3515246.0002/151681409.1
operators and Haiti, or (3) the agreement was among all defendants. This lack of specificity further
reveals of plaintiffs’ lack of evidence and due diligence in bringing this lawsuit. This lack of evidentiary
support for the contention that Unitransfer entered into some agreement to pursue an unlawful purpose
violates Rule 11, and justifies the imposition of sanction.
No evidence plaintiffs suffered damages from Unitransfer collecting funds for the fees: Each
claim against Unitransfer relies on plaintiffs’ palpably false allegations that they suffered damages from
paying the purportedly unlawful fees.5
The purported “class” consists only of people in the United States
and its territories who were subject to the $1.50 fee.6
Simply put, no such class members exist as to
Unitransfer. Any receipt from a transaction using Unitransfer makes clear that the $1.50 at issue is paid
by the recipient of the money transfer in Haiti, at the time they withdraw the transferred funds. In cases
where money is being transferred from Haiti to the U.S., Unitransfer assesses the $1.50 fee at issue
against the sender in Haiti at the time the transfer is made. As such, there is no evidence whatsoever
showing the fee being assessed in the U.S. Thus, even if this fee was illegal (which it is not), because
the class is limited to people in the U.S. and its territories, and Unitransfer never subjected any of those
people to paying the fee here, (1) none of the alleged class members have suffered any damages from
Unitransfer’s conduct, and (2) by definition, no one can even qualify as a class member from having
used Unitransfer’s services. Importantly for Rule 11 purposes, this information was readily available to
plaintiffs, as it is printed on every Unitransfer receipt. It is thus clear that plaintiffs failed to conduct a
basic review of the facts, let alone an objectively reasonable inquiry, before suing. Moreover, Unitransfer
explained this in detail in its motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and Plaintiffs and their counsel have continued
to pursue their claims after the expiration of the safe harbor period.
No evidence of Unitransfer making material misrepresentations: There is no factual support for
Unitransfer making material misrepresentations, which plaintiffs rely on in each claim. Plaintiffs
repeatedly allege in support of their claims that defendants represented the fees were “lawful taxes levied
[or “imposed”] to “fund free and compulsory education.”7
However, the amended complaint contradicts
this claim as it shows that every Unitransfer receipt states that the $1.50 is “fee imposed by the BRH.”8
It is glaringly obvious, based on plaintiffs attributing such alleged representation to all “Defendants,”
that plaintiffs are attributing a quote by defendant Martelly regarding the fees being for his “free and
compulsory education program” to all defendants without any regard to whether Unitransfer ever made
such a representation. Plaintiffs cannot circumvent their lack of evidence of Unitransfer making that
representation by falling back on their claimed unlawful conspiratorial agreement because there is no
evidence Unitransfer ever entered into one.
Unitransfer was never enriched by the fee: There is no evidentiary support for plaintiffs’ unjust
enrichment claim against Unitransfer. Incredibly, plaintiffs directly contradict their conclusory
allegations that Unitransfer converts the fees for its “personal and private use” and is “unjustly enriched
. . . in retaining revenues derived from Plaintiffs and other Class members who paid the fees,” 9
by
5
Id. at ¶¶3, 4, 6, 15-19, 26, 61, 157.
6
Id. at ¶160 (defining the class as “All persons in the United States and its territories who used the services of one or more
of the . . . [defendants] during the Class Period who were subjected to paying the $1.50 on wire transfers made to and from
Haiti and $0.05 per minute on phone calls placed to and from Haiti”).
7
E.g. Id. at ¶¶ 183-84, 191-92, 197, 199, 213, 217-18, 226-27, 239, 248, 256, 264, 267, 275.
8
Id. at ¶108.
9
Id. at ¶¶3, 269 and 270.
3. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall
March 28, 2019
Page 3
CORE/3515246.0002/151681409.1
acknowledging the fees are ultimately remitted to and collected by Haiti.10
Thus, plaintiffs not only have
no evidence of Unitransfer receiving enrichment, they concede they have evidence negating that claim.
The inescapable result is that Rule 11 sanctions are warranted.
Unitransfer does not conduct business in California: There is no evidentiary support for the
claims that Unitransfer violated the California code and/or common law11
because Unitransfer neither
conducts business in California nor holds a license to do so. Any reasonable inquiry by plaintiffs would
reveal that Unitransfer is licensed to do business in only eleven (11) states, and not in California. Publicly
available records also show Unitransfer is not registered in California.12
Further, plaintiffs have no
evidence that Unitransfer conducted business in California without being properly registered. It does not
do so. Nevertheless, plaintiffs assert claims against Unitransfer for violation of California state law
(Counts 5-7, 10) that each rely on the false premise that Unitransfer conducts business in California.
Plaintiff Marazita alleges that he resides in California and contracts with Unitransfer.13
This is either
palpably false or misleading because no such contract could have taken place in California in light of
Unitransfer not conducting business there. As it is easily verifiable from public records that Unitransfer
does not and cannot conduct money transfers in California, plaintiffs asserted these claims against
Unitransfer both without any basis in fact or evidence and without making any reasonable inquiry into
whether the California-based allegations would be supported against Unitransfer. Plaintiffs’ counsel and
plaintiff Marazita should be individually sanctioned for these patently false allegations.
Unitransfer cannot be liable under Florida’s Civil Theft Statute: The claims for civil theft and
conversion lack the required evidentiary support. Regardless of any other allegations, there is no
evidence disputing that, by paying the fees to Unitransfer, the payers of the fees consented to the fees
and Unitransfer lacked the intent necessary to support a violation of Florida’s civil theft statute or a
conversion claim. Under Florida law, “[t]here can be no conversion where a person consents to the
possession by another of the assets allegedly converted. . . . Likewise, such consent clearly precludes the
intent to deprive another person of his property as required by the Florida civil theft statute.”14
In Capital
Factors, the court ruled that the payees at issue consented consent when they knowingly paid charges
designated for taxes. The same holds true with plaintiffs paying the fees here, and such consent precludes
intent to steal, which renders conversion and civil theft unsustainable.15
Plaintiffs had no evidentiary
basis for such intent and should be sanctioned.
10
Id. at ¶62, fn. 4 (“The US$300,000,000 is predicated on the disclosure made by Defendant Lamothe, former Prime-Minister
of Haiti, in his interview with the Miami Herald. If the government collected between $40 and $50 million after the year
2011-201, it stands to reason that after 6 years of averaging $50 million, the total to date amounts to $300,000,000.”)
11
Id. at ¶¶ 26, 162-163, 211-240, and 257-264.
12
Unitransfer does not appear a in search in California’s Secretary of State website for all registered businesses.
https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=False&SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=Unitransfer+USA
&SearchSubType=Keyword
13
D.E. 15, ¶ 19.
14
Capital Factors v. Gen. Plastics Corp., 184 B.R. 996, 1003-04 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1995).
15
See also Transcapital Bank v. Shadowbrook at Vero, LLC, 226 So. 3d 856, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). (requiring directed
verdict for defense on civil theft claim where, among other things, “plaintiffs presented no evidence of any criminal intent of
the defendants, much less clear and convincing evidence of any such intent”).
4. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall
March 28, 2019
Page 4
CORE/3515246.0002/151681409.1
Stinson Leonard Street LLP
/s/ Kieran M. Corcoran
Kieran M. Corcoran (KC4935)
kieran.corcoran@stinson.com
-and-
Paul D. Turner, Pro Hac Vice
Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright
Attorneys for Defendant Unitransfer USA, Inc.
cc: All Counsel of Record via ECF
Respectfully submitted,