Stein v. World-Wide Plumbing Supply Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 Civ. 6795BMC.,13 Civ. 6795BMC. |
| Citation | 71 F.Supp.3d 320 |
| Parties | Rivka STEIN, Plaintiff, v. WORLD–WIDE PLUMBING SUPPLY INC., Moshe Weiss (a/k/a Moses Weiss, a/k/a Moshe Weisz), Yoel Weiss (a/k/a Joel Weiss, a/k/a David Weiss, a/k/a David stern, a/k/a Joe Weiss, a/k/a Wiztel USA, Inc. ), Pearl Weiss, Chaim Lefkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz (a/k/a Sarah Weiss Lefkowitz), Gedalia Daniel Katz (a/k/a Daniel Katz ), Baruch Weiss, Sirki Ehrman (a/k/a Sirky Ehrman, a/k/a Sirka Weiss Ehrman), Ruchie Weiss (a/k/a Rachel Golda Weiss), Abraham Berger (a/k/a Abe Berger), Burtolucci's Ristorante, LLC, Bertolucci's Catering Corp., and John Does Nos. 1–5, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Vincent Filardo, Jr., Daniel Mandell, Mishcon De Reya, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Pearl Weiss, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Franklyn H. Snitow, Alan Victor Klein, Elliot Jeffrey Rosner, Snitow, Kanfer, Holtzer & Millus LLP, Jeffrey R. Berke, Berke & Berke, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Gedalia Daniel Katz, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Baruch Weiss, Toronto, ON, pro se.
Sirki Ehrman, Chicago, IL, pro se.
Ruchie Weiss, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
This action, in which plaintiff brings civil RICO claims predicated on violations of various human trafficking prohibitions contained in Chapter 77 of Title 18 of the United States Code, is before me on motions to dismiss by four of the named defendants. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint against 13 individuals and entities, as well as a number of John Does. The bulk of the Amended Complaint centers on the conduct of Yoel Weiss, plaintiff's husband. Yoel's uncle and aunt, defendants Chaim and Suri Lefkowitz, along with World–Wide Plumbing Supply Inc., have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint against them. Also before me is defendant Gedalia Daniel Katz's (with the others, the “moving defendants”) motion to dismiss. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The facts below are taken from the Amended Complaint and deemed true for the purpose of deciding the pending motions.
In July 2008, plaintiff married Yoel Weiss in a religious (but not civil) ceremony, which triggered the series of events that gives rise to the Amended Complaint. Yoel Weiss is the nephew of moving defendants Chaim and Suri Lefkowitz, and Chaim and Suri are the principal owners of moving defendant World–Wide. Plaintiff alleges that immediately after her marriage to Yoel, he and some of his family members, including Suri, engaged in an “unrestrained campaign of abuse and harassment” against her, including “repeated rapes, beatings, torture, threats of the same, forced servitude, peonage, and—subsequent to that time—threats against Plaintiff's children.” According to plaintiff, this was part of a “scheme to control Plaintiff and prevent her from escaping.”
Most of the alleged abuse came from plaintiff's husband, Yoel Weiss. Yoel repeatedly beat and raped plaintiff. Additionally, Yoel would confine her to a small area of the home they shared with Yoel's parents, Moshe and Pearl Weiss, and his siblings, Ruchie Weiss and Sirky Ehrman. For an eight-month period in 2011, Yoel granted plaintiff permission to leave the house on only three occasions. Chaim and Suri are also alleged to have participated in a conspiracy to falsely imprison plaintiff. In particular, Suri would “check on” plaintiff at her home and constantly remind her that plaintiff's home was wired with audio and video surveillance, and that plaintiff should not attempt to leave the premises.
From about July 2007 to December 2010, plaintiff resided with Yoel Weiss at 1621 East 27th Street in Brooklyn, New York. According to plaintiff, this house (the “Residence/Warehouse”) was also used as a commercial warehouse for the distribution and resale of stolen goods, i.e., an illegal fencing operation. The Amended Complaint details the illegal fencing operation, which relabeled and repackaged stolen merchandise that had been procured by “members of underworld crime organizations, including the so-called Polish Mafia,” from hijacked commercial trailers. Defendants would then ship the repackaged merchandise to “locations both inside and outside the State of New York.” As principal owners of the illegal fencing operation, Chaim, Suri and Yoel would inspect the stolen merchandise and meet with the sellers and potential buyers of the goods. Cash and proceeds of the illegal fencing operation were laundered through defendants World–Wide, Chaim, Suri, Katz, Sirky Ehrman, Moshe Weiss, Pearl Weiss, Ruchie Weiss and John Does Nos. 3–5. Katz also participated in the illegal fencing operation by maintaining personal and corporate banking accounts for the financial transactions of the organization, as well as by enabling Yoel to make illicit purchases using credit cards held in Katz's name.
Chaim and Suri, along with others, forced plaintiff to work 16 hours a day monitoring the workers employed by the illegal fencing operation, but refused to pay her for her labor. In addition, from about March 2009 to June 2009, Yoel forced plaintiff to work at his restaurant, Pizza Express, which was allegedly “operated, at least in part, to assist in the laundering of the proceeds from the illicit fencing operation.” He never paid plaintiff for her work, and when plaintiff asked for payment, he threatened her with bodily harm. Similarly, Yoel forced plaintiff to work without compensation at another restaurant, Burtolucci's Ristorante, LLC, which Yoel had purchased using proceeds from the fencing operation.1
“ ‘To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 514 (2d Cir.2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). “A claim is plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ ” Id. (same).
In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must “accept all factual allegations [in the complaint] as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff.” Meyer v. Jinkosolar Holdings Co., Ltd., 761 F.3d 245, 249 (2d Cir.2014) (internal quotation omitted); see also JTE Enterprises, Inc. v. Cuomo, 2 F.Supp.3d 333, 338–39 (E.D.N.Y.2014).
For plaintiff to properly state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), she must allege “ ‘(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.’ ” 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 535 (S.D.N.Y.2014) (quoting DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 306 (2d Cir.2001) ). As to the second requirement, a RICO enterprise is defined as “ ‘a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct,’ the existence of which is proven ‘by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.’ ” First Capital Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159, 173 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2529, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981) ). In particular, for an association of individuals to constitute as an enterprise, “the individuals must share a common purpose to engage in a particular fraudulent course of conduct and work together to achieve such purposes.” Id. at 174 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv., Inc., 303 F.Supp.2d 432, 447 (S.D.N.Y.2004). The enterprise's purpose or purposes must be common to all of its members. See Crabhouse of Douglaston Inc. v. Newsday Inc., 801 F.Supp.2d 64, 77 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (citing Satinwood, 385 F.3d at 173 ).
The Amended Complaint alleges that aside from Chaim, Suri and World–Wide, the RICO enterprise consisted of Yoel Weiss, Moshe Weiss, Pearl Weiss, Baruch Weiss, Katz, Sirki Ehrman, Ruchie Weiss, Abraham Berger, the Bertolucci's defendants, John Does Nos. 1–5, and Wiztel USA, Inc.,2 and that they had a “common purpose of engaging in illegitimate purposes, including obtaining forced labor from and control over Plaintiff.” However, putting aside the conclusory nature of this allegation, the specific factual allegations in the Amended Complaint show that the enterprise did not share in the common purpose of obtaining forced labor from or otherwise exploiting plaintiff. For example, defendant Katz is alleged to have allowed Yoel Weiss to make illicit purchases using credit cards held in his name and to have maintained bank accounts for the illicit fencing operation. There is no suggestion that Katz shared in the common purpose of obtaining forced labor from plaintiff; at most, he shared in a common purpose to profit through the illicit fencing operation. Similarly, defendant Berger is only alleged to have worked with Yoel Weiss with respect to the purchasing and selling of stolen jewelry for the illicit fencing operation; there are no facts supporting the inference that Berger shared in the common purpose of obtaining forced labor from plaintiff. The same is true for John Does No. 1–5. Thus, because an association of individuals “ ‘must share a common purpose to engage in a particular fraudulent course of conduct and work together to achieve such purposes' ” in order to constitute an enterprise, Newsday, 801 F.Supp.2d at 77 (quoting Satinwood, 385 F.3d at 174 ), the common purpose of the individuals and entities comprising the alleged RICO enterprise in the present case was not to obtain forced labor from plaintiff. Rather, according to the Amended Complaint, the individuals and entities listed by plaintiff associated in order to engage in and profit from an illegal fencing operation.
Properly defining the RICO enterprise is important to determining whether pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Griffin v. Doe
-
Saraswat v. Bus. Integra, Inc.
...demonstrate that Defendants "had the intent to commit the underlying crime" of attempted forced labor. Stein v. World-Wide Plumbing Supply Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 320, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). "A conviction for attempt," in turn, "requires proof that a defendant (a) had the intent to commit the ob......
-
Sahebdin v. Khelawan
... ... Schoolman Transp. Sys., ... Inc ., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005)) ... Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd. v. Shubin Stein , 986 ... F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting ... World-Wide ... Plumbing Supply Inc ., 71 F.Supp.3d 320, 329 ... ...
-
Sahebdin v. Khelawan
... ... Schoolman Transp. Sys., ... Inc ., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005)) ... Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd. v. Shubin Stein , 986 ... F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting ... World-Wide ... Plumbing Supply Inc ., 71 F.Supp.3d 320, 329 ... ...