FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01m2018 02:17 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`98
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX NO~ 518372/20175
`
`
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RaCaIVaD VYSCEF: 01/03/2018?
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “C”
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`12
`: 51
`:
`/2017
`PH
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`14
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`1 of 32
`Page
`
`UNITED
`STATES
`FOR THE DISTRICT
`
`COURT
`DISTRICT
`OF COLUMBIA
`
`Action
`
`No.
`
`11-1919
`
`(ESH)
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) Civil
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`WADE ROBERTSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM
`
`C. CARTINHOUR,
`
`JR.
`
`et al.,
`
`Deferidants.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`OPINION
`
`I
`
`This
`
`case involves
`
`parties
`
`and events
`
`that have
`
`been
`
`before
`
`this
`
`and other
`
`courts many
`
`times.
`
`Previously,
`
`Wade
`
`Robertson
`
`sued William
`
`Cartinhour
`
`in this Court,
`
`but
`
`the jury
`
`found
`
`against
`
`Robertson
`
`and returned
`
`a verdict
`
`in Cartinhour's
`
`favor
`
`for $3.5 million
`
`in compensatory
`
`damages
`
`and $3.5 million
`
`in punitive
`
`damages
`
`for breach
`
`of
`
`fiduciary
`
`duties
`
`as a partner
`
`and as a
`
`and the lawyers
`
`who
`
`lawyer
`
`and for
`
`legal malpractice.
`
`Now,
`
`Robertson
`
`has sued Cartinhour
`
`represented
`
`him,
`
`as well
`
`as several
`
`of Cartinhour's
`
`Serbian
`
`associates.
`
`In this new suit, which
`
`was originally
`
`filed
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York,
`
`Robertson
`
`recasts
`
`as a conspiracy
`
`the
`
`events
`
`underlying
`
`the first
`
`suit,
`
`seeking
`
`to recover
`
`$3.83 million
`
`in damages
`
`based
`
`on claims
`
`under
`
`the Racketeer
`
`Influenced
`.Influenced
`
`and Corrupt
`
`Organizations
`
`Act
`
`(" RICO"
`("RICO"),
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1962,
`
`and
`
`for
`
`fraud,
`
`defamation,
`
`and tortious
`
`interference.
`
`Defendants
`
`have
`
`filed motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`all
`
`counts
`
`which,
`
`for
`
`the reasons
`
`set
`
`forth,
`
`will
`
`be
`
`granted.1
`
`1
`
`have moved
`All
`defendants
`Aleksander
`Popovic.
`To date,
`23, 20 l2,
`
`February
`
`for Vesna
`except
`to dismiss
`Kustodic,
`has been
`Tanja Milicevic
`served
`
`only
`
`Tanja Milicevic,
`and default
`was
`
`and
`entered
`
`on
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`:
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`P14
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`14 .
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`Page
`2 of 32
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`L
`
`ROBERTSON
`
`I
`
`A.
`
`Factual
`
`Background
`
`The
`
`facts
`
`giving
`
`rise to the instant
`
`suit have
`
`been
`
`detailed
`
`in a raft
`
`of opinions,
`
`but most
`
`comprehensively
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`2d 65, 68 (D.D.C.
`
`2010),
`
`and In re W.A.R.
`
`LLP,
`
`No.
`
`11-cv-1574,
`
`2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`9565
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Jan. 27, 2012).
`
`2
`
`The
`
`long
`
`and tortured
`
`history
`
`of Robertson's
`
`relationship
`
`with
`
`Cartinhour
`
`and proceedings
`
`in appellate,
`
`district,
`
`and
`
`bankruptcy
`
`courts
`
`need
`
`not
`
`be restated
`
`at
`
`length
`
`here,
`
`but a summary
`
`of
`
`the factual
`
`and
`
`attempts
`
`procedural
`
`history
`
`of Robertson's
`
`to stop Cartinhour
`
`from recovering
`
`his $3.5 million
`
`investment
`.Investment
`
`in W.A.R.,
`
`LLP
`
`("WAR")
`
`is necessary
`
`to address
`
`the instant
`
`motions.
`
`In September
`
`2004, Robertson,
`
`an attorney,
`
`and Cartinhour,
`
`an 82-year-old
`
`retired
`
`physician,
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`a partnership,
`
`WAR,
`
`to invest
`
`in class
`
`action
`
`securities
`
`litigation.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`2d at 68.
`
`From September
`
`2004
`
`to April
`
`2006,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`contributed
`
`a total
`
`of $3.5 million.
`
`Id.
`
`From September
`
`2004
`
`to August
`
`2009, Robertson
`
`allegedly
`
`contributed
`
`legal
`
`services,
`
`which
`
`he values
`
`at $3.83 million,
`
`almost
`
`entirely
`
`in the class
`
`action
`
`²
`
`No.
`
`10-
`
`711
`
`In re Robertson,
`1 (D.C.
`429 Fed. Appx.
`v. Cartinhour,
`See also Robertson
`Cir.
`2011);
`19454
`(D.C.
`v. Cartinhour,
`LEXIS
`2010 U.S. App.
`Robertson
`Cir. Sept.
`ev-5231,
`15, 2010);
`2010 U.S. App.
`10037
`(D.C.
`LEX1S
`Nos.
`Cir, May
`10-cv-7044,
`10-cv-7015,
`14,
`10-cv-7016,
`No.
`2010
`U.S. App.
`LEXIS
`25024
`(D.C.
`Cir. Mar.
`Robertson
`v. Cartinhour,
`10-cv-7017,
`2010);
`No.
`v. Cartinhour,
`09-cv-1642
`(Sept.
`Robertson
`v. Cartinhour,
`Robertson
`15, 2010);
`16, 2011);
`Robertson
`v. Cartinhour,
`No.
`09-cv-1642
`2011 U.S. Dist.
`No.
`19, 2011);
`09-cv-1642,
`(July
`LEXIS
`31959
`Mar.
`No.
`09-cy-1642
`Robertson
`v. Cartinhour,
`(Dec.
`(D.D.C.,
`28, 2011);
`30,
`09-ov-1642
`Robertson
`v. Cartinhour,
`No.
`Robertson
`v. Cartinhour,
`2010);
`17,
`.1.7, 2010);
`(May
`2d 136,
`F. Supp.
`see also
`In re W.A.R.
`2011
`Bankr.
`137 (D.D.C.
`LLP, No.
`.1
`.Bankr.
`2010);
`11-00044,
`In re W.A.R.
`2011
`LEXIS
`LEXIS
`2650
`(Bankr.
`D.D.C.
`Bankr.
`2599
`11, 2011);
`LLP,
`July
`(Bankr.
`In re W.A.R.
`D.D.C.
`2011
`LEXIS
`No.
`Bankr.
`2448
`LLP,
`11-00044,
`(Bankr.
`In re W.A.R.
`LEX.IS
`D.D.C.
`LLP, No.
`2011 Bankr.
`2273
`11-00044,
`(Bankr.
`In re W.A.R.,
`2011 Rankr.
`D.D.C.
`No.
`LEXIS
`850
`LLP,
`11-00044,
`(Bankr.
`All
`of
`the bankruptcy,
`proceedings
`D.D.C.
`district
`and appellate
`court
`I."
`associated
`with
`be cited
`hereinafter
`as "Robertson
`
`July
`June
`June
`Mar.
`this
`
`6, 2011);
`23, 2011);
`15, 2011);
`16, 2011).
`first
`suit will
`
`2
`
`

`

`April
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`! FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`Pli
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`14
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`3 of 32
`Page
`
`securities
`
`suit Liu
`
`v. Credit
`
`Suisse
`
`First
`
`Boston
`
`Corp, No.
`
`04-cy-03757
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`2004).
`
`Id. at
`
`—
`68-69.
`
`Ultimately,
`
`the Liu
`
`case was
`
`dismissed
`
`and,
`
`as a result, WAR recovered
`
`nothing.
`
`Id. at
`
`69; Robertson
`
`I, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`9565,
`
`—
`at **9-10.
`
`Even
`
`though
`
`the Liu
`
`litigation
`
`was dismissed
`
`by the district
`
`court
`
`in April
`
`2005,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`contributed
`
`his final
`
`$1.5 million
`
`to WAR in April
`
`2006
`
`and,
`
`that
`
`same month,
`
`by
`
`Robertson's
`
`request,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`signed
`
`three
`
`agreements.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`—
`2d at 68-69.
`
`The first,
`
`the Indemnification
`
`Agreement,
`
`purported
`
`to release
`
`Robertson
`
`from all claims
`
`by
`
`Cartinhour
`
`for
`
`"any
`
`future
`
`injuries,
`
`losses,
`
`or damages
`
`not
`
`known
`
`or anticipated"
`
`and required
`
`The
`
`Cartinhour
`
`to indemnify
`
`him for any damages
`
`if he filed
`
`suit against
`
`him.
`
`Id
`
`at
`
`68-69.3
`—
`68
`69.
`
`second
`
`was an amended
`
`partnership
`
`agreement
`
`giving
`
`Robertson
`
`"exclusive"
`
`control
`
`over WAR
`
`and allowing
`
`partners
`
`to take
`
`out
`
`interest-free
`
`loans
`
`from WAR without
`
`having
`
`to repay
`
`them
`
`until
`
`the partnership
`
`was
`
`liquidated.
`
`Id. at 69 n. 5. Third,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`signed
`
`an "Attestation
`
`Certification
`
`of No Attorney-Client
`
`Relationship
`
`with Wade
`
`Robertson,"
`
`which
`
`relinquished
`
`and
`
`any
`
`claims
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`may
`
`have
`
`against
`
`Robertson
`
`"that
`
`could
`
`arise
`
`from any attorney-client
`
`relationship,
`
`whether
`
`actual
`
`or mistakenly
`
`assumed,
`
`or otherwise."
`
`Id. at 70. One month
`
`later,
`
`3 The
`Wade
`
`Indemnification
`A. Robertson
`
`Agreement,
`personally"
`
`provided
`from
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`"release,
`
`acquit,
`
`and forever
`
`discharge
`
`present
`causes
`
`any and all past,
`and future
`counterclaims,
`claims,
`loss
`of action,
`costs,
`damages,
`liabilities,
`actions,
`demands,
`at
`suits
`of services,
`actions,
`compensation,
`expenses,
`third-party
`known
`whether
`and description,
`nature
`law or
`in equity,
`of every
`or unforeseen,
`or unknown,
`or unsuspected,
`suspected
`foreseen,
`law or
`or potential,
`and whether
`or
`at
`actual
`real
`imaginary,
`arising
`or any other
`or
`under
`the common
`state
`federal
`in equity,
`law,
`law,
`claims
`but not
`limited
`that
`or otherwise,
`law,
`to, any
`have
`or might
`been asserted
`as a result
`of any
`been
`
`including,
`have
`
`relationship[.]
`
`Id. at 69 n. 4 (alternation
`
`in original).
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`P$
`:
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`14
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`11/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`4 of 32
`Page
`
`the Second
`
`Circuit
`
`affirmed
`
`the district
`
`court's
`
`dismissal
`
`of Liu
`
`and the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`thereafter
`
`denied
`
`certiorari.
`
`Id at 69.
`
`Despite
`
`failures
`
`in the Liu
`
`litigation
`
`and unbeknownst
`
`to Cartinhour,
`
`Robertson
`
`borrowed
`
`$3.405 million
`
`from the partnership
`
`via two
`
`interest-free
`
`loans,
`
`the repayment
`
`of which
`
`was not
`
`due until
`
`January
`
`2030
`
`and January
`
`2040,
`
`respectively.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 429 Fed. Appx.
`
`at
`
`l. He
`
`deposited
`
`this money
`
`into
`
`an account
`
`opened
`
`in his own
`
`name
`
`and quicidy
`
`lost $1.9 million
`
`of
`
`this money
`
`in the stock market.
`
`See Robertson
`
`I, Preliminary
`
`Injunction
`
`Hearing
`
`—
`Tr. 93:3-6
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Mar.
`
`26, 2010).
`
`All
`
`of
`
`the money
`
`for
`
`the loans
`
`to Robertson
`
`came
`
`from Cartinhour's
`
`investment.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`9565,
`
`at
`
`*13.
`
`After
`
`the Liu
`
`litigation
`
`collapsed,
`
`Robertson
`
`stopped
`
`responding
`
`to Cartinhour's
`
`inquiries
`
`the status
`
`of
`
`the case and his
`
`investment.
`
`Robertson
`
`2d at 69.
`
`on
`
`about
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`Finally,
`
`January
`
`9, 2009,
`
`and February
`
`6, 2009,
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`attorney,
`
`Albert
`
`Schibani,
`
`wrote
`
`a letter
`
`demanding
`
`that Robertson
`
`return
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`money.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 72.) When
`
`Robertson
`
`did not
`
`comply,
`
`another
`
`one of Cartinhour's
`
`attorneys,
`
`Carlton
`
`Obeeny
`
`of
`
`the
`
`law firm Selzer Gurvitch
`
`. Rabin
`
`& Obecny
`
`("SGRO"),4
`("SGRO"),
`
`sent
`
`two
`
`demand
`
`letters
`
`in August
`
`2009
`
`and threatened
`
`to file
`
`suit.
`
`(Id.
`
`¶ 76.)
`
`Robertson
`
`still
`
`did not
`
`return
`
`the money.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`2d at 69.
`
`B.
`
`Robertson
`
`I
`
`Instead,
`
`on August
`
`28, 2009, Robertson
`
`filed
`
`suit
`
`in this Court,
`
`seeking
`
`a declaratory
`
`judgment
`
`that he was
`
`not
`
`liable
`
`for Cartinhour's
`
`investment
`
`in WAR based
`
`on the
`
`agreements
`
`signed
`
`by Cartinhour
`
`in April
`
`2006
`
`that
`
`supposedly
`
`authorized
`
`him to take
`
`interest-
`
`free
`
`loans
`
`and released
`
`him from all
`
`liability.
`
`SGRO,
`
`on Cartinhour's
`
`behalf,
`
`answered,
`
`4
`
`Obeeny,
`managers
`management
`
`Rabin,
`Polott,
`Dattaro,
`Gurvitch,
`¶ 18.) Defendant
`of SGRO.
`(Id.
`responsibilities.
`(Id.)
`
`Strickland,
`Bramnick
`
`are shareholders
`and K.earney
`is a SGRO employee
`with
`some
`
`and
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`:
`P14
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`DOC.
`14
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`5 of 32
`Page
`
`demanded
`
`the return
`
`of his
`
`investment,
`
`and counterclaimed
`
`for
`
`fraud,
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`fiduciary
`
`duty
`
`as
`
`a partner
`
`and lawyer,
`
`legal malpractice,
`
`and various
`
`other
`
`torts
`
`and equitable
`
`causes
`
`of action.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 429 Fed. Appx.
`
`—
`at 1-2.
`
`In response
`
`to Cartinhour's
`
`counterclaims,
`
`Robertson
`
`filed
`
`an answer
`
`and asserted
`
`"counter-counter
`
`claims"
`
`for
`
`breach
`
`of contract,
`
`setoff,
`
`quantum
`
`meruit,
`
`and misrepresentation
`
`relating
`
`to his
`
`contributed
`
`legal
`
`services
`
`WAR.5
`WAR.
`
`to
`
`However,
`
`since
`
`they were
`
`improperly
`
`asserted
`
`in his answer
`
`as counter-counterclaims
`
`to Cartinhour's
`
`counterclaims,
`
`they were
`
`therefore
`
`stricken
`
`upon Cartinhour's
`
`unopposed
`
`motion.
`
`At
`
`the time,
`
`the Court
`
`informed
`
`complaint
`
`in accord
`
`with
`
`Rule
`
`15.6
`
`Robertson
`
`that
`
`those
`
`claims
`
`must
`
`be asserted
`
`by amending
`
`his
`
`Nevertheless,
`
`he never
`
`did so.
`
`As with
`
`Robertson's
`
`unrelated
`
`litigation
`
`in California,
`
`7
`
`the ensuing
`
`litigation
`
`here was
`
`tumultuous.
`
`His
`
`incessant
`
`—
`filings-described
`
`as
`
`"vexatious,"
`
`"meritless,"
`
`"reckless,"
`
`and "bad
`
`faith"-
`
`—
`
`ultimately
`
`elicited
`
`warnings
`
`and sanctions
`
`from this Court,
`
`as well
`
`as the Court
`
`of
`
`Appeals,
`
`for
`
`frustrating
`
`proceedings
`
`and imposing
`
`unnecessary
`
`costs
`
`on
`
`Cartinbour."
`Cartinhour.
`
`5
`
`See Robertson
`(D.D.C.
`Feb.
`
`I, Pl.'s
`22, 2010).
`
`Answer
`
`to Def.'s
`
`Counter-Compl.
`
`and Counter
`
`Cls. Thereto.
`
`at 24-26
`
`6
`
`See Robertson
`
`I, Status
`
`Conf.
`
`Tr.
`
`155:12-155:23,
`
`—
`166:22-167:3
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Mar.
`
`22, 2010).
`
`The
`
`06-cy-
`
`25, 2008);
`v. Qadri,
`LEXIS
`
`7
`
`discovery
`
`disputes
`has given
`rise to myriad
`complaints
`one of Robertson's
`that
`time
`the first
`is not
`This
`the influence
`under
`for
`in California
`2008
`After
`and court
`decisions.
`Robertson's
`arrest
`driving
`him arrested.
`the police
`to have
`with
`of alcohol,
`he sued the bar and the waiter
`for
`conspiring
`four
`years
`of
`litigation.
`See
`after
`Circuit
`dismissal
`case was affirmed
`by the Ninth
`this
`of
`(95
`Robertson
`399 Fed. Appx.
`see also Robertson
`No.
`v. Qadri,
`219
`v. Qadri,
`Cir.
`2010);
`2006 U.S.
`2009 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS
`3790
`Cal.
`Robertson
`Jan. 21, 2009);
`v. Qadri,
`(N.D.
`04624,
`6525
`Robertson
`v. Qadri,
`2008
`U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS
`LEXIS
`98881
`(N.D.
`Cal. Mar.
`Dist.
`2007 WL 3445084
`Cal. Nov.
`(N.D.
`Cal.
`Jan.
`Robertson
`(N.D.
`13, 2007);
`17, 2008);
`(N.D.
`Cal. Mar.
`2007 U.S. Dist.
`Robertson
`v. Qadri,
`18750
`Robertson
`v. Qadri,
`1, 2007);
`2007 WL 1176635
`08-cv-2176
`No.
`of Palo
`Robertson
`v. City
`(N.D.
`Cal. Apr.
`Alto,
`20, 2007);
`(N.D.
`08-cv-2175
`Robertson
`(N.D.
`Cal. 2008);
`v. Ryan, No.
`Cal. 2008).
`—
`(D.D.C
`I, 711 F. Supp.
`2d 136,
`138-39
`See Robertson
`for
`conduct
`and frivolous
`motion
`
`2010)
`
`costs
`(imposing
`see also Robertson
`
`for obstructive
`1, No.
`10-7033,
`
`reconsideration);
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`COUNTY
`12
`: 51
`:
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`14
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`11/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`6 of 32
`Page
`
`Robertson's
`
`litigiousness
`
`reached
`
`new heights
`
`when
`
`Cartinhour
`
`attempted
`
`to preserve
`
`the
`
`small
`
`amount
`
`of Cartinhour's
`
`$3.5 million
`
`that
`
`remained.
`
`After
`
`it became
`
`apparent
`
`that
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`investment,
`
`$3.405 million
`
`of which
`
`had been moved
`
`by Robertson
`
`to his personal
`
`accounts
`
`though
`
`self-authorized
`
`loans,
`
`had been
`
`dissipated
`
`and only
`
`$700,000
`
`remained
`
`in
`
`Robertson's
`
`personal
`
`accounts,
`
`the Court
`
`froze
`
`the accounts.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`2d at
`
`—
`70-71.
`
`In the midst
`
`of
`
`this, Robertson
`
`showed
`
`up at Cartinhour's
`
`home,
`
`without
`
`his
`
`attorneys'
`
`knowledge
`
`or consent,
`
`and threatened
`
`Cartinhour
`
`with
`
`"prolonged
`
`and costly"
`
`litigation
`
`if he did
`
`not settle.
`
`Id.
`
`at 72.
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`attorneys
`
`moved
`
`to enjoin. Robertson
`
`from contacting
`
`him
`
`next
`
`this Court
`
`could
`
`again
`
`without
`
`counsel
`
`present,
`
`but
`
`the very
`
`day and before
`
`rule, Robertson
`
`went
`
`to Cartinhour's
`
`apartment
`
`and spoke
`
`to him through
`
`the door
`
`since Cartinhour
`
`refused
`
`to
`
`allow
`
`Robertson
`
`inside.
`
`1d. The Court,
`./d.
`
`with
`
`the eventual
`
`consent
`
`of Robertson's
`
`counsel,
`
`issued
`
`a restraining
`
`order
`
`requiring
`
`Robertson
`
`to stay
`
`away
`
`from Cartinhour.
`
`See id. at 72.
`
`Subsequently
`
`on March
`
`26, 2010,
`
`the Court
`
`entered
`
`a second
`
`freezing
`
`order,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`ultimately
`
`upheld
`
`on appeal
`
`
`
`by the D.C..D,C, Circuit.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 429 Fed. Appx.
`
`at 1-2,
`
`4,
`
`Increasingly
`
`dissatisfied
`
`with
`
`the proceedings
`
`in this Court,
`
`Robertson
`
`unleashed
`
`a
`
`barrage
`
`of motions
`
`in this Court
`
`and the Court
`
`of Appeals.
`
`In addition,
`
`he moved
`
`for
`
`recusal,
`
`arguing
`
`that
`
`that Court
`
`was
`
`biased.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`21 at 74. When
`
`that motion
`
`was
`
`to
`
`of
`
`fourth motion
`for
`costs
`unwarranted
`Cir. Oct.
`at 1 (D.C.
`Order
`19, 2010)
`filing
`(imposing
`Court
`had
`those
`the Circuit
`to imposing
`Prior
`proceedings).
`court
`stay district
`sanctions,
`Cartinhour's
`and sanctions
`against
`for disqualification
`Robertson's
`motion
`denied:
`summarily
`at 1 (D.C.
`Robertson's
`Order
`see Robertson
`Cir. Sept.
`I, No.
`21, 2010);
`10-7033,
`counsel,
`LEXIS
`see Robertson
`I, No.
`2010 U.S. App.
`petition
`for mandamus
`10-5231,
`recusal,
`seeking
`for
`clarification
`and reconsideration,
`Robertson's
`motion
`at *1 (D.C.
`Cir. Sept.
`19454,
`15, 2010);
`sanctions"
`under
`28
`not hesitate
`to impose
`it "will
`where
`the Court
`him that
`warned
`explicitly
`—
`Cir.
`at 1-2
`Order
`(D.C.
`Cir. Rule
`38, see Robertson
`I, No.
`and D.C.
`U.S.C.
`§ 1927
`10-7033,
`motion
`see Robertson
`to stay
`a preliminary
`Robertson's
`Sept.
`I,
`injunction,
`3, 2010);
`emergency
`and a stay,
`and Robertson's
`motion
`for
`sanctions
`at 1 (D.C.
`No.
`7033, Order
`June
`Cir.
`16, 2010);
`court were
`I, No.
`see Robertson
`orders
`certain
`the district
`of
`that
`10-7033,
`unappealable,
`noting
`Order
`Cir. May
`14, 2010).
`(D.C.
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`:
`Pl
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`14
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`NO.
`518372
`/2 Ó17
`INDEX
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`7 of 32
`Page
`
`denied,
`
`he again went
`
`to the Court
`
`of Appeals,
`
`but his request
`
`for a new judge,
`
`his petition
`
`for a
`
`writ
`
`of mandamus
`
`ordering
`
`recusal,
`
`and his many
`
`interlocutory
`
`appeals
`
`were
`
`summarily
`
`denied.9
`denied,
`
`Finally,
`
`he filed
`
`a motion
`
`in the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`to sanction
`
`and disqualify
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`attorneys
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, arguing
`
`that
`
`they
`
`had fabricated
`
`evidence
`
`and had failed
`
`to disclose
`
`key
`
`facts, which
`
`was also
`
`denied
`
`as groundless
`
`and unwarranted.
`
`Robertson
`
`1, Order,
`
`10-7033
`
`(D.C.
`
`Cir. Sept.
`
`21, 2010).
`
`C.
`
`The
`
`Trial
`
`The
`
`legal
`
`claims
`
`and defenses
`
`presented
`
`in Robertson
`
`Iwere
`
`tried
`
`to a jury
`
`over
`
`six days
`
`in February
`
`2011.
`
`The jury
`
`heard
`
`evidence
`
`relating
`
`to the signing
`
`of
`
`the original WAR
`
`agreement,
`
`the Indemnification
`
`and the Attestation
`
`of No Attorney-
`
`partnership
`
`Client
`
`Relationship.
`
`Agreement,
`
`At
`
`trial,
`
`Robertson
`.Robertson
`
`argued
`
`that
`
`the WAR partnership
`
`agreement
`
`and other
`
`agreements
`
`were
`
`valid,
`
`knowing,
`
`and
`
`voluntary.10
`
`He claimed
`
`that
`
`he was not
`
`liable
`
`to Cartinhour
`
`because
`
`he had not been Cartinhour's
`
`attorney,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`understood
`
`the agreements
`
`he signed,
`
`and
`
`Cartinhour
`
`had been
`
`represented
`
`by
`
`independent
`
`attorney,
`
`Robert
`
`"Larry"
`
`Ash, when
`
`he signed
`
`the partnership
`
`agreement.11
`agreement."
`
`Robertson
`
`cross-examined
`
`both
`
`Cartinhour12
`
`Ash,13
`
`and
`
`and both
`
`9
`
`Robertson
`Robertson
`recusal
`issued
`
`2010 U.S. App.
`I, No.
`10-5231,
`at 4. Undaunted,
`I, 429 Fed. Appx.
`in the instant
`is addressed
`suit, which
`today.
`
`see also
`(D.C. Cir. Sept.
`19454
`LEXIS
`15, 2010);
`for
`yet another
`filed
`motion
`Robertson
`recently
`in a separate Memorandum
`Opinion
`and Order
`
`°
`
`"
`
`2
`
`Trial
`
`Tr.
`
`—
`108:15-109:12
`
`(Feb.
`
`8, 2011)
`
`[hereinafter
`
`"Tr.
`
`Tr.
`
`[date],"];
`
`Tr. Tr. 2/16/11,
`
`49:08.
`
`Tr. Tr. 2/14/11,
`
`—
`101:03-101:15.
`
`Tr. Tr. 2/17/11,
`
`—
`77:10-79:09.
`
`'
`
`3
`
`Tr. Tr. 2/8/11,
`id. 17:17-20:15.
`
`—
`12:20-12:22;
`
`—
`14:03-14:05;
`
`—
`92:01-92:05;
`
`Tr. Tr. 2/14/11,
`
`—
`5:19-15:25
`
`; see also
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`:
`11/14
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`P14
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`14
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`8 of 32
`Page
`
`testified
`
`that Ash
`
`had not
`
`reviewed
`
`any of
`
`the agreements
`
`Cartinhour
`
`signed,
`
`consulted
`
`with
`
`Cartinhour
`
`about
`
`the agreements,
`
`or
`
`represented
`
`him on the
`
`matter."
`matter,
`
`. 14
`
`On February
`
`18, 2011,
`
`after
`
`a day of deliberations,
`
`the jury
`
`returned
`
`a $7 million
`
`verdict
`
`in Cartinhour's
`
`favor:
`
`$3.5 million
`
`in compensatory
`
`damages
`
`and $3.5 million
`
`in punitive
`
`damages.
`
`In response
`
`to Cartinhour's
`
`special
`
`verdict
`
`form,
`
`the jury
`
`found
`
`that an attorney-client
`
`relationship
`
`existed
`
`between
`
`Robertson
`
`and Cartinhour,
`
`that Robertson
`
`breached
`
`his
`
`fiduciary
`
`duties
`
`to Cartinhour
`
`as his business
`
`partner
`
`and as an attorney,
`
`and that Robertson
`
`committed
`
`legal malpractice.
`
`See Robertson
`
`I, Verdict
`
`Form (Feb.
`
`18, 2011).
`
`In addition,
`
`the jury
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the Indemnification
`
`Agreement
`
`was procured
`
`influence,
`
`was unconscionable,
`
`and
`
`thus, was unenforceable
`
`by Robertson.
`
`Id."
`
`by undue
`
`In his appeal,
`
`Robertson
`
`challenges
`
`this
`
`verdict
`
`and objects
`
`to many
`
`of
`
`the Court's
`
`rulings,
`
`arguing
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`should
`
`have
`
`enforced
`
`the partnership
`
`and indemnification
`
`agreements,
`
`and challenging
`
`the ruling
`
`that
`
`any recompense
`
`for his
`
`services
`
`must
`
`be asserted
`
`as a
`
`claim against
`
`the partnership
`
`rather
`
`than Cartinhour.
`
`Robertson
`
`I, No.
`
`11-7026,
`
`Corrected
`
`Br.
`
`for Appellant
`
`at 33, 48 (D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`Jan. 4, 2011)
`
`("Robertson
`
`IAppeal
`
`Br.").
`
`Further,
`
`he contends
`
`that
`
`the trial was
`
`fundamentally
`
`unfair
`
`because
`
`of
`
`the purported
`
`misrepresentations
`
`by Cartinhour
`
`and his attorneys
`
`during
`
`discovery
`
`and pretrial
`
`proceedings.
`
`Id. at 56.
`
`D.
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Proceedings
`
`M
`
`See Tr. Tr. 2/17/11,
`
`—
`84:01-84:11;
`
`Tr. Tr. 2/14/11,
`
`—
`17:17-20:15.
`
`"
`
`'
`
`At
`
`he sought
`claim for a setoff
`the Court
`that point,
`Robertson's
`denied
`to WAR and,
`for
`services
`against
`his defense
`rendered
`asserted
`was
`therefore,
`money
`improperly
`Robertson
`24, 2011).
`The
`Order
`(D.D.C.
`I, Minute
`Feb.
`Cartinhour.
`counterclaims,
`remaining
`and dismissed
`Cartinhour's
`withdrawn
`for
`were
`counterclaim
`rescission,
`including
`voluntarily
`Robertson's
`with
`the Court
`25, 2011).
`prejudice.
`I, Judgment
`at 1 (D.D.C.
`Feb.
`Robertson
`judgment
`for declaratory
`relief
`with
`for
`was
`also dismissed
`prejudice.
`Id. Robertson
`moved
`matter
`of
`the close
`of Cartinhour's
`and again
`the close
`of all evidence,
`law at
`evidence
`at
`See Robertson
`this Court
`denied.
`I, Order
`(D.D.C..Mar.
`28, 2011).
`
`equitable
`
`because
`
`by
`claim
`as a
`which
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`11/14
`:
`CLERK
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`14
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`9 of 32
`
`Page
`
`In an effort
`
`to sidetrack
`
`the trial
`
`in Robertson
`
`Iand
`
`to find
`
`a more
`
`favorable
`
`forum,
`
`Robertson
`
`filed
`
`first
`
`for
`
`a
`
`stay,16 '
`
`then
`
`initiated
`
`actions
`
`in two
`
`other
`
`jurisdictions.
`
`First,
`
`in the Western
`
`District
`
`of Tennessee,
`
`Robertson
`
`sought
`
`to stay Robertson
`
`I based
`
`on bankruptcy
`
`proceedings
`
`filed
`
`against WAR.
`
`The Tennessee
`
`bankruptcy
`
`court,
`
`as well
`
`as this
`
`Court,
`
`rejected
`
`his attempts
`
`to invoke
`
`the automatic
`
`stay
`
`provision
`
`of
`
`the U.S. Bankruptcy
`
`Code,
`
`11 U.S.C.
`
`§ 362,
`
`ruling
`
`that
`
`"[it]
`
`does
`
`not
`
`stay claims
`
`against
`
`Robertson
`
`because
`
`he is not
`
`the
`
`debtor."
`
`See Robertson
`
`LEXIS
`
`—
`at **6-8.
`
`I, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`9565,
`
`The Tennessee
`
`bankruptcy
`
`court
`
`transferred
`
`the case to the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`on January
`
`4, 2011,
`
`due to the significant
`
`adversarial
`
`proceedings
`
`already
`
`underway
`
`in the District
`
`of
`
`Columbia.l'
`
`Robertson
`
`I, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`9565,
`
`at *9.
`
`Finding
`
`"no
`
`property
`
`available
`
`for
`
`distribution
`
`from the
`
`estate,"
`
`the bankruptcy
`
`trustee
`
`in this
`
`Court
`
`filed
`
`a report
`
`of no distribution
`
`on March
`
`30, 2011,
`
`—
`id. at **9-10,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`affirmed
`
`by
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`Judge
`
`Teel
`
`and then
`
`by Chief
`
`Judge
`
`Lamberth.
`
`Id. at
`
`*20.
`
`'
`
`6
`
`The Circuit
`2010:
`"[t]his
`court's
`motion."
`
`efforts
`also
`in an Order
`the trial
`to delay
`Robertson's
`rebutted
`earlier motions
`for
`denied
`has previously
`Court
`appellant's
`of a date for
`trial
`on the merits
`not warrant
`does
`the filing
`setting
`Robertson
`I, No.
`10-7033.
`
`dated October
`and the district
`stay,
`of yet another
`
`stay
`
`19,
`
`the Tennessee
`
`17
`
`Robertson
`
`appealed
`injunctive
`
`relief,
`
`sanctions,
`of.
`·of Columbia
`bankruptcy
`Injunctive
`Relief,
`Damages,
`Tenn. Mar.
`(W.D.
`8, 2011).
`to Withdraw
`02082, Mot.
`transfer
`order was
`denied.
`Tenn.
`Apr.
`18, 2011).
`
`bankruptcy
`contempt
`damages,
`court's
`void.
`judgment
`Contempt
`
`and he also
`order
`transfer
`sought
`and to declaration
`the. District
`that
`proceedings,
`I, Joint Mot.
`Robertson
`for Sanctions,
`and to Declare
`J. Void,
`2:11-cv-02082
`Proceedings,
`I, 2:11-cv-
`see Robertson
`he withdrew
`his motion,
`Subsequently,
`the
`Tenn. Mar.
`and his appeal
`of
`Contempt
`(W.D.
`17, 2011),
`Mot.,
`I, Order
`2:11-cv-02082
`(W.D.
`Robertson
`on Bankruptcy
`Appeal,
`
`court's
`
`9
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`: 51
`:
`12
`Pli
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF
`14
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372
`/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`of 32
`
`10
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`ROBERTSON11
`
`Second,
`
`he filed
`
`a new suit
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York.
`
`naming
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`all of
`
`the lawyers
`
`who were working
`
`on Robertson
`
`("
`("Robertson
`
`Il"),18
`
`I,19
`
`and a cast of others.
`
`See Robertson
`
`II, No.
`
`10-cv-8442,
`
`2011
`
`U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`126030,
`
`at
`
`*13
`
`(S,D.N.Y.
`
`Nov.
`
`9,
`
`2010).
`
`Although
`
`it was
`
`styled
`
`as a civil
`
`RICO complaint,
`
`it centered
`
`on the same
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`claims
`
`as were
`
`presented
`
`in Robertson
`
`I. The defendants
`
`who
`
`had been
`
`served
`
`(Cartinhour
`
`and
`
`his lawyers)
`
`filed
`
`a motion
`
`to dismiss
`
`or,
`
`in the alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`the case to the District
`
`of
`
`Columbia,
`
`which
`
`Judge
`
`Swain
`
`granted,
`
`observing:
`
`Robertson's
`appears
`York
`the jurisdiction
`deference.
`
`in the Southern
`decision
`suit
`to file
`to have
`a tactical
`been principally
`the D.C. Court,
`and so should
`of
`
`District
`maneuver
`be accorded
`
`of New
`to avoid
`little
`
`Id20
`Id.
`
`Upon
`
`transfer,
`
`this
`
`case was
`
`initially
`
`assigned
`
`to Judge
`
`Bates.
`
`Robertson
`
`filed
`
`a Notice
`
`of
`
`Related
`
`Case
`
`in Robertson
`
`II but,
`
`contrary
`
`to his obligations
`
`to the Court,
`
`he identified
`
`only
`
`the
`
`bankruptcy
`
`case as related
`
`under
`
`LCvR
`
`40.5(b)(3).
`
`2¹
`
`Defendants,
`
`however,
`
`filed
`
`notice
`
`18
`
`the proceedings
`All
`II."
`"Robertson
`
`relating
`
`to this
`
`case in this Court
`
`and the Second
`
`Circuit
`
`will
`
`be cited
`
`as
`
`l9
`
`These
`
`Polott,
`
`defendants
`lawyers,
`and Strickland
`Rabin,
`
`Kearney,
`Schibani,
`.I<carney,
`will
`be referenced
`
`Bramnick,
`collectively
`
`Selzer,
`as the
`
`Dattaro,
`Obeeny,
`"attorney-defendants."
`
`Gurvitch,
`
`20
`
`having
`make
`
`2011),
`
`were
`those motions
`While
`the judgment
`in Robertson
`have
`for Entry
`of Default
`(D.D.C.
`in Robertson
`I, she reasoned
`presided
`over
`that
`jury
`determinations."
`res judicata
`Swain
`Judge
`terminated
`Accordingly,
`for a stay.
`motion
`denied
`Robertson's
`Swain's
`of mandamus
`to vacate
`Judge
`is still
`which
`pending.
`
`Robertson
`a stay pending
`sought
`pending,
`H, Corrected
`Robertson
`Ideclared
`void.
`transferred
`Mar.
`16, 2011).
`When
`Judge
`Swain
`in the underlying
`that
`entered
`judgment
`"having
`to review
`is in the best
`position
`trial,
`briefing
`[it]
`any
`at
`*13.
`LEXIS
`II, 2011 U.S. Dist.
`Robertson
`126030,
`defendants'
`prejudice
`to dismiss
`without
`motions
`the Second
`Circuit
`has petitioned
`11-4925
`(Nov.
`Robertson
`II, Pet.,
`
`to
`
`decisions
`Mot.
`
`on his efforts
`and Mot.
`for Stay
`the case after
`trial
`D.C. Action
`and
`further
`and
`
`and
`for a writ
`29.
`
`Id. Robertson
`transfer
`order,
`
`²¹
`
`Robertson
`
`II, Notice
`
`of Related
`
`Case
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Nov.
`
`16, 2011).
`
`10
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`:
`P14
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`DOC.
`14
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`Page
`11 of 32
`
`this
`
`case as related
`
`to Robertson
`
`I.22
`I.I.
`
`Thereafter,
`
`the case was
`
`reassigned
`
`to this
`
`identifying
`
`Court.
`
`In a total
`
`about-face,
`
`Robertson
`
`now claims
`
`in Robertson
`
`IIthat
`
`he was
`
`the victim
`
`and
`
`that
`
`it was he who was
`
`defrauded
`
`by Cartinhour
`
`into
`
`entering
`
`into
`
`their
`
`partnership
`
`agreement,
`
`and by Cartinhour
`
`and his
`
`lawyers'
`
`actions
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, which
`
`constitute
`
`evidence
`
`of a RICO
`
`conspiracy
`
`against
`
`him.23
`him.him.
`
`Specifically,
`
`his
`
`first RICO
`
`claim centers
`
`on an alleged
`
`criminal
`
`enterprise
`
`consisting
`
`of
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`his attorneys
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, and members
`
`of
`
`the William
`
`C. Cartinhour,
`
`Jr.
`
`(Compl.
`
`to which
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`financial
`
`Foundation,
`
`a Serbian
`
`charity
`
`
`("(" Charity"Charity"
`("Charity")
`
`¶¶ 43, 52),
`
`interest
`JllIVl VII
`
`
`
`inill WARTTJ I JI wasTTuITassigned.uVVJglluu
`
`VJ4JJJJu that4 Jul hel V wasTTllu fraudulently
`'4 Vu byVg Cartinhour
`'4Il JVllll J induced
`I** I V I
`l
`Jl Ill
`HeJ JV claims
`VI
`
`to
`
`enter
`
`into and remain
`
`in the partnership,
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`was
`
`the one pulling
`
`the wool
`
`over
`
`his
`
`!
`
`eyes,
`
`and that all defendants
`
`are liable
`
`for predicate
`
`acts
`
`including
`
`immigration
`
`fraud,
`
`tax fraud,
`
`extortion,
`
`and misrepresentations
`
`during
`
`the Robertson
`
`Ilitigation.24
`II
`
`litigation.litigation.
`
`(Id.
`
`¶¶ 112,
`
`114,
`
`120,
`
`122;
`
`P1.'s Opp'n
`
`to
`
`Defs.'
`
`.Mots.Mots.Mots.
`
`to Dismiss
`
`("Pl.'s
`
`Opp'n")
`
`at 5-8.)
`
`²²
`
`Robertson
`
`II, Mot.
`
`to Reassign
`
`Case
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Nov.
`
`17, 2011).
`
`23
`
`Bramnick,
`Robertson
`
`(Id.)
`
`to those
`in Robertson
`allegation
`adds one factual
`issue
`at
`Robertson
`In this new complaint,
`of Robertson's
`in support
`submitted
`an affidavit
`the accountant
`who
`which
`relates
`to Tim Gray,
`of
`to Order
`Jan. 4,
`the Court
`I, Response
`accounts.
`(D.D.C.
`of WAR's
`See Robertson
`accounting
`7), and
`case (see supra
`in the California
`note
`an affidavit
`had submitted
`2010).
`Previously,
`Gray
`counsel
`called
`a Maryland
`that
`in January
`or February
`Robertson
`alleges
`2010,
`opposing
`attorney
`to defraud
`of scheming
`Cartinhour.
`case and accused
`and Robertson
`in the California
`Gray
`to this
`effect was
`sent
`to Gray's
`alleges
`He also
`that a letter
`landlord
`(Compl.
`¶¶ 86, 89.)
`Robertson
`nor Gray
`have
`in Gray's
`but neither
`seen the letter.
`resulted
`that
`it
`eviction,
`belief,"
`that
`call was made
`this
`Robertson
`on "information
`and
`based
`by Kearney,
`claims,
`given
`in and knowledge
`from
`their
`role
`or someone
`in concert
`with
`them,
`acting
`had."
`identifiable
`person
`their motive,
`which
`"no
`other
`Iand
`
`I,
`
`and
`
`(Id.)
`
`24
`
`In Robertson
`II, plaintiff
`that he and Cartinhour
`owned
`and which
`
`namely
`Cartinhour
`
`in Robertson
`he knew
`to facts which
`ascribes
`significance
`sudden
`merging WAR and TCT,
`had discussed
`a company
`LLC,
`committed
`tax and immigration
`alleges
`Robertson
`fraud.
`
`However,
`
`I,
`
`1111
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`11/14
`CLERK
`/2017
`12
`: 51
`:
`P14
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`DOC.
`NO.
`14
`NYSCEF
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`12 of 32
`
`Page
`
`His
`
`second
`
`RICO
`
`claim names
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`attorneys
`
`in Robertson
`
`Ias
`
`a racketeering
`
`enterprise
`
`based
`
`on his accusation
`
`that
`
`they
`
`committed
`
`wire
`
`and mail
`
`fraud,
`
`extortion,
`
`obstruction
`
`of
`
`justice,
`
`and witness
`
`retaliation
`
`based
`
`on acts
`
`including
`
`failing
`
`to disclose
`
`Ash's
`
`name
`
`in discovery
`
`requests,
`
`filing
`
`an inaccurate
`
`letter
`
`stating
`
`that Robertson
`
`was Cartinhour's
`
`counsel
`
`for TCT, making
`
`defamatory
`
`statements
`
`about Gray,
`
`and presenting
`
`false
`
`affidavits.
`
`(Id.
`
`¶¶ 128,
`
`130,
`
`136,
`
`138; Pl.'s Opp'n
`
`at 5-8.)
`
`In addition,
`
`he charges
`
`all defendants
`
`with
`
`fraud,
`
`defamation,
`
`business
`
`defamation
`
`and
`
`tortious
`
`interference
`
`based
`
`on these
`
`same
`
`allegations.
`
`(k/.
`
`¶¶ 141-49.)
`
`In terms
`
`of damages,
`
`Robertson
`
`contends
`
`that
`
`he is owed
`
`$3.83 million
`
`in legal
`
`services
`
`still
`
`—
`
`in Robertson
`
`I. See
`
`to WAR (id.
`
`¶ 106), which
`
`is the very
`
`setoff
`
`he sought-and
`
`seeks
`
`Robertson
`
`I Appeal
`
`Br.
`
`at 48. He conveniently
`
`omits
`
`any mention
`
`of
`
`the $3,405 million
`
`of
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`money
`
`that he loaned
`
`himself,
`
`the $1.9 million
`
`he lost
`
`in the stock market,
`
`or
`
`the $7
`
`million
`
`judgment
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, most
`
`of which
`
`remains
`
`unsatisfied.
`
`Cartinhour
`
`and the attorney-defendants
`
`have
`
`filed motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`all counts.
`
`25
`
`I.
`
`EFFECT
`
`OF PRIOR
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Given
`
`the significant
`
`overlap
`
`in Robertson
`
`I and Robertson
`
`II, many
`
`of Robertson's
`
`claims
`
`are barred
`
`by
`
`res
`
`judicata,26
`judicata,
`
`judicial
`
`estoppel,
`
`and the requirement
`
`that
`
`challenges
`
`to trial
`
`they
`event,
`
`never
`these
`
`took
`any
`events
`
`steps
`a merger,
`toward
`did not arise post-trial.
`
`Robertson
`
`helped
`
`him close
`
`down
`
`TCT,
`
`and,
`
`in any
`
`25
`
`These motions
`(D.D.C.
`Dec.
`meritless.
`
`were
`
`12, 2011)),
`
`with
`in accord
`timely-filed
`Robertson's
`and therefore
`
`this Court's
`argument
`
`order
`that
`
`they
`
`(see Robertson
`are time-barred
`
`II, Order
`is
`
`26
`
`Contrary
`judicata
`
`may
`
`to Robertson's
`be raised
`
`contention
`in a motion
`
`(Pl.'s
`to dismiss.
`
`the law is well
`that
`at 27),
`Opp'n
`established
`—
`v. Am -Islamic
`Rels. Action
`See, e.g., Lopez
`Isktrnic
`
`res
`
`12
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`:
`11/14
`/2017
`: 51
`12
`Pli
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`14
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`95
`
`Filed
`
`03/16/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`13 of 32
`
`Page
`
`procedures
`
`be litigate