Kaul v. Christie
Decision Date | 25 February 2019 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 16-2364 (KM) (SCM) |
Citation | 372 F.Supp.3d 206 |
Parties | Richard Arjun KAUL, Plaintiff, v. Christoper J. CHRISTIE, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Richard Arjun Kaul, M.D., Palisades Park, NJ, pro se.
Lewis Stein, Esq., Morristown, NJ, pro se.
Daniel Michael Vannella, Office of the NJ Attorney General, Robert J. McGuire, New Jersey Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, David D'Aloia, Saiber, LLC, Florham Park, NJ, Geri L. Albin, Saiber LLC, Sandra B. Saunders, Office of the General Counsel, Thomas Joseph Cafferty, Gibbons, P.C., Liza M. Walsh, Marc D. Haefner, Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP, Newark, NJ, John J. Robertelli, Gene Y. Kang, Rivkin Radler LLP, Hackensack, NJ, William T. Marshall, Jr., Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, Stewart M. Leviss, Berkowitz, Lichtstein, Kuritsky, Giasullo & Gross, LLP, Roseland, NJ, Edward Sponzilli, Bridgewater, NJ, Erdal Ayhan Turnacioglu, O'Toole Scrivo Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu, LLC, Cedar Grove, NJ, Elizabeth Rolande Gorman, David J. Montag, Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Rochelle Park, NJ, Sophia Ashley Perna, Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, NY, Glen Austin Sproviero, Joanna Rebecca Cohen, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY, Kenneth M. Brown, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP, Bedminster, NJ, Jeffrey Daniel Noonan, Sr., Pomeroy, Heller & Ley, LLC, New Providence, NJ, Richard Malagiere, Law Offices Of Richard Malagiere, P.C., Moonachie, NJ, for Defendant.
KEVIN MCNULTY, United States District JudgeDr. Richard A. Kaul, an anesthesiologist by training, claims to be a minimally invasive spine surgeon. In March 2014, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners (the "Board") said otherwise. Because his performance of spine surgeries on 11 patients without proper training and experience constituted gross and repeated malpractice, negligence, and incompetence, the Board revoked his medical license. From Dr. Kaul's perspective, the disciplinary proceedings were nothing but a sham. What really happened, he says, is that a network of politically connected neurosurgeons wanted to make an example of him. His high-quality medical practice was cutting into their margins, and so with the assistance of a cabal of lawyers, hospitals, insurance companies, and media figures, they importuned public officials to banish him from the practice of medicine in New Jersey. And so Dr. Kaul brought this action against some forty-odd defendants.
Now before the court are dozens of motions to dismiss, which in general will be granted. In part, the motions are granted under Rule 12(b)(1), on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the most part, however, dismissal is on 12(b)(6) grounds, because the amended complaint fails to allege plausibly any cause of action as to any defendant.
The gist of the amended complaint ("AC") is that the entire medical, legal, and political ("medico-legal", in Dr. Kaul's words) community of New Jersey conspired to revoke Dr. Kaul's license. No surprise, then, that Dr. Kaul's list of grievances contained in this 101-page AC is exhaustive. To begin to untangle the thick knot of private citizens, professional organizations, law firms, attorneys, administrators, politicians, and public officials alleged to have been in on the scheme to deprive Dr. Kaul of his license, this introductory section proceeds in five subparts.
Part I.A is a summary of the parties involved and the nature of the allegations against them. Part LB summarizes the license revocation proceedings. Because it is relevant to res judicata and Younger abstention issues, Part I.C describes some actions related to this one. Part I.D concludes this background section with some information about the procedural history and claims asserted in this case.
As I must, I accept as true Dr. Kaul's allegations for the purpose of these motions to dismiss.1
Dr. Kaul went to medical school in London and completed his residency here, at Albert Einstein-Montefiore Medical Center in New York. He became a board-certified anesthesiologist. In 2003, the Board suspended Dr. Kaul's license to practice medicine; in 2012, they revoked it entirely and permanently. These incidents, and others, are discussed below, but the takeaway for now is this: The AC claims that the 2012 disciplinary proceedings were the result of a vast conspiracy between the Governor, hospitals, insurance companies, lawyers, and competitors to drive Dr. Kaul, a minimally invasive spine surgery pioneer, out of business. (See generally AC)
For convenience, I group the defendants into eight categories.
The New Jersey Attorney General's Office represents these nine defendants in this case:
The following seven defendants are surgeons (though the AC isn't always clear, I presume they are neurosurgeons) in New Jersey. For the most part, Dr. Kaul claims that they are his jealous competitors, and thus stood to benefit from his ruin.
• Dr. Marc Cohen sent a complaint about Dr. Kaul performing spine surgeries to the Board in 2007. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 75)
Dr. Kaul's allegations as to these five defendants, hospitals and their presidents, are generally similar, so I group them together. (E.g. AC ¶¶ 118, 147, 176, 205, 235, 260, 293) He claims that these defendants compete with surgical centers, such as the one Dr. Kaul ran, and therefore had reason to divert business from him to themselves.
The following four medical organizations (plus Dr. Wolfa, the chairman of one) are involved in this case. Dr. Kaul generally attributes the wrongful...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anand v. Independence Blue Cross, 20-6246
...se plaintiffs are not exempt from the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) when pleading fraud claims. See Kaul v. Christie, 372 F.Supp.3d 206 (D.N.J. 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-1651, 2019 WL 4733531, at *229 (3d Cir. June 20, 2019). IV. DISCUSSION A. Anand's Amended Complaint......
-
Wilson v. United States
... ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses ... Plaintiff's claims against Governor Murphy for monetary ... damages with prejudice. See Kaul v. Christie , 372 ... F.Supp.3d 206, 243 (D.N.J. 2019) ... B ... Federal Tort Claims Act ... Plaintiff ... ...
-
Murray v. United States
... ... claims for monetary damages, and the Court will dismiss those ... claims with prejudice. Kaul v. Christie , 372 ... F.Supp.3d 206, 243 (D.N.J. 2019) ... B ... Federal Tort Claims Act ... As to ... ...
-
Welch v. United States
... ... claims for monetary damages, and the Court will dismiss those ... claims with prejudice. Kaul v. Christie , 372 ... F.Supp.3d 206, 243 (D.N.J. 2019) ... B ... Federal Tort Claims Act ... As to ... ...