{"cached_at":"2026-10-13T09:48:32.900728+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69406481","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","id":69406481,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nyed/","court_id":"nyed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10983555/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10671297/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/403/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2024-11-22T11:43:24.292976-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T08:11:55.482226-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Margo K. Brodie","referred_to_str":"Marcia M. Henry","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-09T17:43:53.193509-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-11-22","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-09","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Travelers Personal Insurance Company v. Electrostim Medical Services, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc","docket_number":"1:24-cv-08138","docket_number_core":"2408138","docket_number_raw":"1:24-cv-08138","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"MKB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"MMH","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"524200","cause":"18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act","nature_of_suit":"470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-11-22T11:43:24.288008-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810531/","id":14810531,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.289638-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.289651-08:00","name":"Rossana Cielo","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810530/","id":14810530,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.281427-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.281435-08:00","name":"Yorlan Alfonso","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810529/","id":14810529,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.272936-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.272944-08:00","name":"Gretchen Dacey-Zavalianos","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810528/","id":14810528,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.263201-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.263213-08:00","name":"Dean Muley","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810527/","id":14810527,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.253717-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.253726-08:00","name":"Mario Garcia, Jr.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810526/","id":14810526,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.243414-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.243424-08:00","name":"Electrostim Medical Services, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810525/","id":14810525,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.197910-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.197922-08:00","name":"United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810524/","id":14810524,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.091724-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.091732-08:00","name":"The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810523/","id":14810523,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.040668-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:46.040677-08:00","name":"The Standard Fire Insurance Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810522/","id":14810522,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.964805-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.964819-08:00","name":"Travelers Property Casualty Company of America","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810521/","id":14810521,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.751118-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.751128-08:00","name":"Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810520/","id":14810520,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.707611-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.707620-08:00","name":"Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810519/","id":14810519,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.666466-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.666476-08:00","name":"Travelers Casualty and Surety Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810518/","id":14810518,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.585165-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.585176-08:00","name":"The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810517/","id":14810517,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.526563-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.526573-08:00","name":"The Travelers Indemnity Company of America","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810516/","id":14810516,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.469653-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.469665-08:00","name":"The Travelers Indemnity Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810515/","id":14810515,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.366517-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.366528-08:00","name":"The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810514/","id":14810514,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.302066-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.302080-08:00","name":"The Phoenix Insurance Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810513/","id":14810513,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.221890-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.221902-08:00","name":"The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14810512/","id":14810512,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958342/","attorney_id":9958342,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958343/","attorney_id":9958343,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9958344/","attorney_id":9958344,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","docket_id":69406481,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.116978-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-24T23:39:45.116994-08:00","name":"St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481087484/","id":481087484,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496810753/","id":496810753,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-09T08:11:55.599002-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T08:11:55.599025-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-09T08:11:55.585687-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T08:11:55.585704-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-09","time_filed":"11:01:50","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481083894/","id":481083894,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496806991/","id":496806991,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-09T08:01:57.490539-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T08:01:57.490558-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Conference AND ~Util - Set Deadlines","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-09T08:01:57.477654-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T08:01:57.477675-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-09","time_filed":"10:56:15","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480684202/","id":480684202,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496397039/","id":496397039,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/64/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-06T12:21:27.620655-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-06T12:21:27.663263-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time to File Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-06T12:21:27.575819-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-06T12:21:27.586556-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-06","time_filed":"15:14:56","entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480490249/","id":480490249,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496197444/","id":496197444,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-05T08:20:54.067920-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T08:20:54.067933-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order(Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T08:20:54.055581-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T13:50:20.760491-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-05","time_filed":"16:47:12","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480367121/","id":480367121,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496068506/","id":496068506,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/63/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-02T14:50:12.829135-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T14:50:12.840073-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to Appeal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-02T14:50:12.793685-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T14:50:12.805231-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-02","time_filed":"17:42:15","entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480356003/","id":480356003,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496057154/","id":496057154,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/62/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-02T13:53:20.402596-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T13:53:20.422831-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reconsideration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-02T13:53:20.359517-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T13:53:20.371053-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-02","time_filed":"16:42:56","entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480291028/","id":480291028,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495990906/","id":495990906,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-02T08:30:25.210799-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T08:30:25.210823-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order(Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-02T08:30:25.196494-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T08:30:25.196514-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-02","time_filed":"11:29:33","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480172049/","id":480172049,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495866683/","id":495866683,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/61/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-01T11:14:19.519348-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-01T11:14:19.532831-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-01T11:14:19.490138-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-01T11:14:19.499576-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-01","time_filed":"14:07:44","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479281322/","id":479281322,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494926312/","id":494926312,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/60/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-24T10:30:42.035174-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-01T14:13:13.375752-07:00","sha1":"82c5208c6be78f3df3cc6dafd13a6964aa2b8065","page_count":51,"file_size":339811,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.524200/gov.uscourts.nyed.524200.60.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nyed.524200/gov.uscourts.nyed.524200.60.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.nyed.524200/494926312.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 1 of 51 PageID #:\n 2902\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n ---------------------------------------------------------------\n TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE\n COMPANY, ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE\n INSURANCE COMPANY, ST. PAUL MERCURY MEMORANDUM & ORDER\n INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CHARTER OAK 24-CV-8138 (MKB)\n FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE PHOENIX\n INSURANCE COMPANY, THE TRAVELERS\n HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,\n THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,\n THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF\n AMERICA, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY\n COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, TRAVELERS\n CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,\n TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE\n COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS\n PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE\n COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY\n CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, THE\n STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,\n THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY\n OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, UNITED\n STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY\n COMPANY, FARMINGTON CASUALTY\n COMPANY, FIDELITY AND GUARANTY\n INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., TRAVCO\n INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS\n CASUALTY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT,\n AND TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY\n INSURANCE COMPANY,\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v.\n\n ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,\n MARIO GARCIA, JR., DEAN MULEY,\n GRETCHEN DACEY-ZAVALIANOS, and\n YORLAN ALFONSO,\n\n Defendants.\n ---------------------------------------------------------------\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 2 of 51 PageID #:\n 2903\n\n\n\n MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:\n\n Plaintiff Travelers 1 commenced the above-captioned action on November 22, 2024,\n\n against Defendants Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. (\u201cEMSI\u201d) and Mario Garcia, Jr., Dean\n\n Muley, Gretchen Dacey-Zavalianos, Yorlan Alfonso, and Rossana Cielo (the \u201cIndividual\n\n Defendants\u201d). (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Travelers alleged that Defendants wrongfully\n\n obtained New York State no-fault and workers\u2019 compensation insurance reimbursements for\n\n durable medical equipment (\u201cDME\u201d) and related supplies and asserts claims under the Racketeer\n\n Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1962(c)\u2013(d) (\u201cRICO\u201d) and fraud\n\n pursuant to New York law, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 546\u2013613). Travelers sought declaratory and injunctive\n\n relief, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 614\u201324). 2\n\n\n\n 1\n The Court refers to Plaintiffs, collectively, as \u201cTravelers.\u201d Plaintiffs name in the\n Complaint Travelers Personal Insurance Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance\n Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, The\n Phoenix Insurance Company, The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, The\n Travelers Indemnity Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The Travelers\n Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers\n Casualty Insurance Company of America, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company,\n Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, The\n Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, and United States Fidelity and\n Guaranty Company.\n In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs also name Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity\n and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., TravCo Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty\n Company of Connecticut, and Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company.\n The Court adopts the parties\u2019 convention of referring to Plaintiffs collectively as\n Travelers because, according to Plaintiffs\u2019 corporate disclosure statement, Travelers\u2019 companies\n are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Travelers Companies, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries.\n (Corp. Disclosure Statement, Docket Entry No. 40.)\n 2\n On February 3, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a\n claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Travelers opposed\n the motion. (Defs.\u2019 Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 22.) On September 13, 2025, the Court:\n (1) granted Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the RICO claims against Defendants and the common\n law fraud claim against the Individual Defendants; (2) denied Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the\n Complaint on the basis of insufficient licensure allegations, where Travelers alleged that EMSI\n was ineligible to collect payments because it did not possess the required licensing; and (3)\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 3 of 51 PageID #:\n 2904\n\n\n\n On November 10, 2025, Travelers filed an Amended Complaint 3 asserting: (1) that the\n\n Individual Defendants committed a substantive RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(c)\n\n through the \u201cEMSI Enterprise,\u201d (Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 1072\u201389, Docket Entry No. 39); (2) that the\n\n Individual Defendants engaged in a RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(d) through the\n\n EMSI Enterprise, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1090\u201396); (3) common law fraud claims against Defendants pursuant to\n\n New York law, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1097\u20131106), Pennsylvania law, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1107\u201316), Florida law, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1117\u2013\n\n 27), and Georgia law, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1128\u201338); and (4) a claim for declaratory relief under the Declaratory\n\n Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201\u201302, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1139\u201349). 4 Defendants move to dismiss the\n\n Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of\n\n Civil Procedure, and Travelers opposes the motion. 5 For the reasons explained below, the Court\n\n grants in part and denies in part Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss and: (1) dismisses the RICO\n\n claims against Defendants; (2) dismisses the common law fraud claims against the Individual\n\n\n\n\n granted Travelers leave to file an amended complaint (the \u201cSeptember 2025 Decision\u201d). (Sep.\n 2025 Decision, Docket Entry No. 38.) Travelers Pers. Ins. Co. v. Electrostim Med. Servs., Inc.,\n No. 24-CV-8138, 2025 WL 2637674 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2025).\n 3\n Travelers did not include Rossana Cielo as a defendant in the Amended Complaint.\n 4\n Travelers asserts that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to (1) 28 U.S.C.\n \u00a7 1331 based on federal question jurisdiction and (2) 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332 based on diversity of\n citizenship. (Am. Compl. \u00b6 91.) See, e.g., Powell v. Maldonado, No. 23-CV-826, 2025 WL\n 20087, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2025) (\u201cThe amended complaint, like the original complaint,\n invokes both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.\u201d), aff\u2019d, No. 25-259, 2026 WL 904987\n (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) (summary order); Gargano v. Univ. of Vermont Med. Ctr., No. 23-CV-13,\n 2023 WL 10669008, at *1 (D. Vt. July 17, 2023) (stating that, in a RICO action, the plaintiff\n asserted both federal question and diversity jurisdiction).\n 5\n (Defs.\u2019 Not. of Mot. to Dismiss (\u201cDefs.\u2019 Mot.\u201d), Docket Entry No. 50; Defs.\u2019 Mem. in\n Supp. of Defs.\u2019 Mot. (\u201cDefs.\u2019 Mem.\u201d), appended to Defs.\u2019 Mot., Docket Entry No. 50-1; Pls.\u2019\n Opp\u2019n to Defs.\u2019 Mot. (\u201cPls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n\u201d), Docket Entry No. 52; Defs.\u2019 Reply in Supp. of Defs.\u2019 Mot.\n (\u201cDefs.\u2019 Reply\u201d), Docket Entry No. 53.)\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 4 of 51 PageID #:\n 2905\n\n\n\n Defendants and (3) denies Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the state-law fraud claims against\n\n EMSI.\n\n I. Background\n\n a. Factual background\n\n i. The parties\n\n \u201cTravelers underwrites automobile insurance in the State of New York.\u201d 6 (Am. Compl. \u00b6\n\n 183.) Each of Travelers\u2019 companies is duly organized and exists under the laws of the State of\n\n\n\n\n 6\n The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint for\n the purpose of deciding Defendants\u2019 motion. The Court also considers documents attached to\n and incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint and takes judicial notice of relevant\n state laws, state regulations, case law, and public documents that are not subject to dispute. See\n Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (permitting judicial notice of facts \u201cnot subject to reasonable dispute\u201d);\n Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 164 (2d Cir. 2012) (stating that \u201crelevant matters of public\n record\u201d are susceptible to judicial notice). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, \u201cthe district court\n is normally required to look only to the allegations on the face of the complaint,\u201d but \u201cmay\n consider documents that \u2018are attached to the complaint,\u2019 \u2018incorporated in it by reference,\u2019\n \u2018integral\u2019 to the complaint, or the proper subject of judicial notice.\u201d United States v. Strock, 982\n F.3d 51, 63 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007)); see\n United States ex. rel. Henig v. Amazon.com, Inc., 177 F.4th 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2026) (same);\n Pearson v. Gesner, 125 F.4th 400, 406 (2d Cir. 2025) (same); Lynch v. Dep\u2019t of Ed. of N.Y., 822\n F. Supp. 3d 258, 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2026) (\u201cOn a motion to dismiss, courts are constrained in their\n review to the four corners of the complaint, the documents attached thereto, those that are\n integral to the complaint or incorporated by reference, and those facts or documents of which the\n court can take judicial notice.\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition, \u201c[i]t is well\n established that a district court may rely on matters of public record in deciding a motion to\n dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), including case law and statutes.\u201d Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue\n Shield, 152 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 1998); see Hudson Shore Assocs. Ltd. P\u2019ship v. New York, 139\n F.4th 99, 104 n.1 (2d Cir. 2025) (citations omitted); Goe v. Zucker, 43 F.4th 19, 29 (2d Cir.\n 2022) (first citing Alaska v. Am. Can Co., 358 U.S. 224, 226\u201327 (1959); and then citing\n Kavowras v. N.Y. Times Co., 328 F.3d 50, 57 (2d Cir. 2003)); Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.,\n 816 F. App\u2019x 532, 534 (2d Cir. 2020) (district courts \u201cmay consider public records that may be\n judicially noticed in ruling on motions\u201d); Perkins v. Solomon, 821 F. Supp. 3d 395, 406\n (E.D.N.Y. 2026) (noting the court may take judicial notice of public records in deciding a motion\n to dismiss, although the \u201cdocuments subject to judicial notice cannot be used at the motion to\n dismiss stage for the truth of the matters asserted therein,\u201d \u201conly . . . to establish the fact that\n they, or the proceedings they reflect, exist\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)).\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 5 of 51 PageID #:\n 2906\n\n\n\n Connecticut, 7 has its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut, and is authorized to\n\n conduct business in New York, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 38\u201340.) Travelers\u2019\n\n allegations pertain to claims submitted for various state no-fault or workers compensation\n\n insurance benefits for its insureds who lived in New York or were covered by automobile or\n\n workers\u2019 compensation insurance policies that Travelers issued during the relevant period. (Id. \u00b6\n\n 94.) EMSI 8 is a registered Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Tampa,\n\n Florida, that received authorization to conduct business in the State of New York on or about\n\n May 14, 2012, and remains active in New York as a foreign business corporation delivering\n\n DME to patients residing in the state, including the five boroughs of New York City. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 2,\n\n 41\u201342; 95\u201396.) Garcia founded EMSI in 1995 and is the chairman and owner. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 48, 260.)\n\n He \u201ccompiled a team of managers to participate in the operation and management of EMSI,\n\n including, but not limited to, the executive team comprised of Muley, Dacey-Zavalianos, and\n\n Alfonso.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 933.)\n\n On or about March 25, 2022, EMSI enrolled as a Medicaid Managed Care network\n\n provider in New York State\u2019s Medicaid Program. (Id. \u00b6 97.) \u201cEMSI specifically targeted New\n\n York as part of a nationwide market,\u201d (id. \u00b6 99), and \u201creported in its Medicare application that\n\n [thirty-five percent] of its business is derived from New York\u201d and \u201cthat it only does business\n\n through the U.S. mail,\u201d (id. \u00b6\u00b6 100, 1037).\n\n\n\n\n 7\n The only exception is Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., which is\n duly organized and exists under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. (Am. Compl. \u00b6 39.)\n 8\n EMSI is owned by Garcia and is operated by the Individual Defendants, all of whom\n reside in and are citizens of Florida. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 47, 60, 69, 80.)\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 6 of 51 PageID #:\n 2907\n\n\n\n ii. Defendants\u2019 devices and recommended usage\n\n EMSI \u201cmanufacturers interferential stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve\n\n stimulation (\u2018TENS\u2019) devices and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (\u2018NMES\u2019) devices\n\n (collectively, \u2018TENS/NMES Devices\u2019) and provides these devices and related supplies and\n\n services to patients throughout numerous states, including New York.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 2; see id. \u00b6\u00b6 263\u2013\n\n 75.)\n\n The manuals for the EMSI\u2019s TENS/NMES Devices caution patients that \u201c[f]ederal law\n\n requires a prescription from [their] physician before use of th[e] product\u201d and, consistent with\n\n this warning, the standard of care and clinical guidelines warn that the devices \u201cshould be used\n\n only under the continued supervision of a physician.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 318, 321 (emphasis omitted).)\n\n Medical providers prescribe TENS/NMES Devices \u201cfor pain relief or to treat muscle weakness.\u201d\n\n (Id. \u00b6 285.) Ordinarily, the use of a TENS/NMES Device \u201cstart[s] with a [thirty-day] trial with\n\n documentation of efficacy justifying continued use.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 296.)\n\n After receiving an initial TENS/NMES device, patients are not provided additional\n\n supplies automatically or on a subscription basis; rather, patients are given supplies only when\n\n they need or want them. (Id. \u00b6 284.) Patients are also \u201cprovided with replenishment items, such\n\n as chargers or lead wires, only when the equipment is damaged or worn out and there is a\n\n documented need for the replacement.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 288.) The \u201cprescribing provider must provide\n\n regular supervision and identify the metrics to warrant ongoing use of the TENS/NMES unit\u201d\n\n and continued use \u201cshould be based on objective documented efficacy and functional\n\n improvement.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 307\u201308.)\n\n iii. Alleged fraudulent scheme\n\n Travelers allege that EMSI through the Individual Defendants submitted hundreds of\n\n false and fraudulent claims to Travelers for \u201cunnecessary, medically worthless, and fraudulently\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 7 of 51 PageID #:\n 2908\n\n\n\n charged DME\u201d and replenishment supplies \u201cpurportedly provided to patients\u201d whose employers\n\n were Travelers insured or who were eligible for coverage under automobile insurance policies.\n\n (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 13.) According to Travelers, EMSI dispensed these items to patients who neither\n\n needed nor wanted them, automatically replenished supplies that were not legitimately\n\n prescribed, and routinely billed for TENS Devices far beyond the period of reasonable and\n\n necessary use. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 292\u2013583.) Travelers contends that EMSI\u2019s bills were not eligible for\n\n reimbursement because they were: (1) fraudulently prescribed; and/or (2) improperly billed.\n\n (See generally Am. Compl.)\n\n Travelers also alleges that EMSI\u2019s \u201cexecutive team,\u201d of which the Individual Defendants\n\n are members, created the \u201cLetter of Medical Necessity\u201d (\u201cLOMN\u201d) form to justify the\n\n fraudulently prescribed or improperly billed supplies. (Id. \u00b6 107.) The \u201cLOMNs created by the\n\n executive team were the central mechanism of the Defendants\u2019 fraudulent scheme\u201d because it\n\n was \u201cdesigned to prescribe the devices and related accessories to Travelers\u2019 claimants, in\n\n perpetuity, thereby enabling the Defendants to bill Travelers indefinitely through EMSI.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\n\n 7.) To implement this scheme, Travelers alleges that the executive team \u201cestablished the\n\n mandatory policy whereby the LOMN functioned as the requisite prescription that EMSI\n\n demanded prior to shipping any devices to claimants,\u201d (id. \u00b6 110), and created and enforced an\n\n internal protocol, \u201cwhich mandated that their sales force (who are non-healthcare professionals)\n\n would unlawfully complete the LOMN,\u201d (id. \u00b6 9).\n\n II. Discussion\n\n a. Standard of review\n\n In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\n Procedure, a court \u201cmust \u2018construe [the complaint] liberally, accepting all factual allegations\n\n therein as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff[\u2019s] favor.\u2019\u201d Singh v. Deloitte\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 8 of 51 PageID #:\n 2909\n\n\n\n LLP, 123 F.4th 88, 93 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting Sacerdote v. N.Y. Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 106\u201307 (2d\n\n Cir. 2021)); see also Vaughn v. Phoenix House N.Y. Inc., 957 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2020)\n\n (\u201c[The Second Circuit] review[s] de novo a district court\u2019s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to\n\n Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the\n\n complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff\u2019s favor.\u201d (quoting\n\n Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002))). A complaint must plead\n\n \u201cenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u201d Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,\n\n 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Yerkyn v. Yakovlevich, 164 F.4th 224, 231 (2d Cir. 2026) (quoting\n\n id.); see Miller v. McDonald, 180 F.4th 420, 426 (2d Cir. 2026) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556\n\n U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A claim is plausible \u201cwhen the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows\n\n the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct\n\n alleged.\u201d Matson v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of N.Y., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011)\n\n (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); see Knapp v. Barclays PLC, 171 F.4th 166, 170 (2d Cir. 2026)\n\n (quoting same); Carruthers v. Colton, 153 F.4th 169, 179 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting same); Roe v.\n\n St. John\u2019s Univ., 91 F.4th 643, 651 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting Matson, 631 F.3d at 63); see also\n\n Salazar v. Nat\u2019l Basketball Ass\u2019n, 118 F.4th 533, 544 (2d Cir. 2024) (\u201c[T]he plaintiff\u2019s\n\n allegations must enable the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged\n\n misconduct.\u201d (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678)), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 880 (2025); Emilee\n\n Carpenter, LLC v. James, 107 F.4th 92, 99 (2d Cir. 2024) (\u201c[S]urviv[ing] a motion to dismiss . . .\n\n requires \u2018factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant\n\n is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u2019\u201d (quoting same)). Although all allegations contained in the\n\n complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is \u201cinapplicable to legal conclusions.\u201d Iqbal, 556\n\n U.S. at 678; see Roe, 91 F.4th at 651 (\u201cAlthough all factual allegations contained in the\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 9 of 51 PageID #:\n 2910\n\n\n\n complaint are assumed to be true, this rule does not extend \u2018to legal conclusions. Threadbare\n\n recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not\n\n suffice.\u2019\u201d (quoting id.)).\n\n b. Some of Travelers\u2019 claims are time-barred, but equitable tolling applies\n\n Defendants argue first, that the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint because\n\n Travelers\u2019 claims are based in substantial part on conduct occurring outside the statute of\n\n limitations. In support, Defendants contend that some of Travelers\u2019 claims are time-barred, as\n\n some of the challenged bills are dated after the limitations period expired. (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 30\n\n (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. CPM Med Supply Inc., No. 23-CV-5864, 2024 WL 3949968\n\n (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2024)).) Second, Defendants contend that equitable tolling is inapplicable\n\n because Travelers does not \u201coffer particularized factual allegations showing when [Travelers]\n\n discovered the wrong (or was reasonably diligent) and concrete acts of concealment by\n\n [D]efendants.\u201d (Id.) In support, Defendants argue that Travelers\u2019 evidence of fraudulent\n\n concealment includes claims submitted by EMSI \u201cin the ordinary course of its business as a\n\n DME supplier fulfilling patient prescriptions from their healthcare provider.\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Reply 12.)\n\n Travelers argues first, that its claims are not barred because the \u201cbulk of damages\n\n claimed\u201d fall within the statute of limitations. (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 33.) Second, Travelers contends that\n\n its RICO claims are not barred because equitable tolling applies. (Id. at 31\u201334.) In support,\n\n Travelers argues that Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment by: (1) refusing to comply\n\n with Travelers\u2019 verification requests; (2) submitting fraudulent sworn statements in other\n\n litigation actions asserting similar claims; (3) removing Garcia\u2019s name from bills submitted to\n\n Travelers \u201cto conceal his ongoing involvement in the scheme\u201d; (4) \u201cdirectly lying to Travelers\n\n about EMSI\u2019s battery sales\u201d; (5) providing inaccurate Rule 16 initial disclosures in this action;\n\n and (6) \u201cproviding incomplete discovery responses and withholding documents in this\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 10 of 51 PageID #:\n 2911\n\n\n\n litigation.\u201d (Id. at 32.) Third, Travelers argues that it would be inappropriate for the Court to\n\n dismiss claims as barred by the statute of limitations on a motion to dismiss because Travelers\n\n has sufficiently pleaded fraudulent concealment and therefore \u201cthere is \u2018at least a triable issue of\n\n fact as to whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations\u2019 [and] the case should\n\n be heard on the merits.\u201d (Id. at 33 (quoting Demchik v. Gen. Motors Corp., 821 F.2d 102, 106\n\n (2d Cir. 1987)).)\n\n i. Statute of limitations\n\n \u201cCivil RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations, which begins to run\n\n \u2018when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the RICO injury.\u2019\u201d Nastasi & Assocs.,\n\n Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P., No. 24-545, 2026 WL 2149800, at *2 (2d Cir. July 27, 2026) (summary\n\n order) (first citing Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 552 (2000); and then quoting In re Merrill\n\n Lynch Ltd. P\u2019ships Litig., 154 F.3d 56, 58 (2d Cir. 1998)); Zappin v. Cooper, No. 23-671, 2024\n\n WL 3250475, at *1 (2d Cir. July 1, 2024) (summary order) (\u201cCivil RICO claims are subject to a\n\n four-year statute of limitations.\u201d (citing Cohen v. S.A.C. Trading Corp., 711 F.3d 353, 361 (2d\n\n Cir. 2013))); Cohen, 711 F.3d at 361 (stating that a civil RICO claim must be brought within four\n\n years of accrual, which occurs \u201cwhen the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the RICO\n\n injury\u201d (first quoting In re Merrill Lynch Ltd. P\u2019ships Litig., 154 F.3d at 58; and then citing\n\n Rotella, 528 U.S. at 555)).\n\n Under New York law, a claim \u201cbased upon fraud\u201d must be commenced either \u201csix years\n\n from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person\n\n under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have\n\n discovered it,\u201d whichever is greater. N.Y. C.P.L.R. \u00a7 213(8); Meyer v. Seidel, 89 F.4th 117,\n\n 130\u201331 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting id.).\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 11 of 51 PageID #:\n 2912\n\n\n\n Under Florida law, a claim for fraud must be brought within four years. Fla. Stat. \u00a7\n\n 95.11(3)(i); Otero v. Newrez LLC, No. 21-12990, 2022 WL 3155414, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 8,\n\n 2022) (per curiam) (citing id.); Horn v. Est. of Camacho, 817 F. App\u2019x 872, 875 (11th Cir. 2020)\n\n (citing same); Weatherly v. Pershing, L.L.C., 945 F.3d 915, 919 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing same). A\n\n claim for fraud begins to run \u201cfrom the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were\n\n discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence.\u201d Fla. Stat. \u00a7\n\n 95.031(2)(a); Otero, 2022 WL 3155414, at *1 (quoting id.); Horn, 817 F. App\u2019x at 875 (citing\n\n same).\n\n Under Pennsylvania law, a claim for fraud must be brought within two years. 42 Pa.\n\n Cons. Stat. \u00a7 5524(7); Prime Energy & Chem. LLC v. Tucker Arensberg, P.C., No. 23-2169,\n\n 2024 WL 4441492, at *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 8, 2024) (citing id.). A claim for fraud begins to run when\n\n a plaintiff \u201clearned or should have learned, through the exercise of due diligence, that they have a\n\n cause of action.\u201d LabMD Inc. v. Boback, 47 F.4th 164, 182 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Beauty Time,\n\n Inc. v. VU Skin Sys., Inc., 118 F.3d 140, 148 (3d Cir. 1997)); Prime Energy & Chem., 2024 WL\n\n 4441492, at *2 (\u201cThe two-year statute of limitations starts to run as soon as \u2018the cause of action\n\n accrued[.]\u2019\u201d (alteration in original) (quoting 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. \u00a7 5502(a))).\n\n Under Georgia law, a claim for fraud must be brought within four years. O.C.G.A. \u00a7 9-3-\n\n 31; Everson v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 24-11058, 2024 WL 5116429, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024)\n\n (per curiam) (citing id.), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 96 (2025), reh\u2019g denied, 146 S. Ct. 910 (2025);\n\n McCurley v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 24-10243, 2024 WL 3858914, at *2 (11th Cir. Aug. 19,\n\n 2024) (per curiam) (citing same), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1175 (2025).\n\n The Court finds that many of Travelers\u2019 claims were filed after the expiration of the\n\n statutes of limitations. For the RICO claims based on conduct that took place before November\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 12 of 51 PageID #:\n 2913\n\n\n\n 22, 2020, the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. For fraud claims: (1) under New\n\n York law, claims before November 22, 2018 are barred by the statute of limitations; (2) under\n\n Florida law, claims before November 22, 2020 are barred by the statute of limitations; (3) under\n\n Pennsylvania law, claims before November 22, 2022 are barred by the statute of limitations; and\n\n (4) under Georgia law, claims before November 22, 2020 are barred by the statute of limitations.\n\n Travelers acknowledges some of its claims fall outside the statutes of limitations in its\n\n opposition, stating Travelers\u2019 \u201cbulk of damages claimed\u201d fall within the statute of limitations, but\n\n not all. (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 33 (emphasis added).) Travelers also claims that the doctrine of equitable\n\n tolling tolls the statutes of limitations for the expired civil RICO claims.\n\n ii. Equitable tolling\n\n The doctrine of equitable tolling \u201callows a district court to toll the statute of limitations.\u201d\n\n Polanco v. U.S. Drug Enf\u2019t Admin., 158 F.3d 647, 655 (2d Cir. 1998); see Doe v. United States,\n\n 76 F.4th 64, 71 (2d Cir. 2023) (\u201cEquitable tolling is a doctrine that permits courts to extend a\n\n statute of limitations on a case-by-case basis to prevent inequity.\u201d (quoting Warren v. Garvin,\n\n 219 F.3d 111, 113 (2d Cir. 2000))). For equitable tolling to apply, a litigant must demonstrate\n\n \u201c[1] that some extraordinary circumstance stood in her way and [2] that she has been pursuing\n\n her rights diligently.\u201d Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 129 F.4th 124, 142 (2d Cir. 2025)\n\n (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Doe, 76 F.4th at 71), cert. denied, 146\n\n S. Ct. 1501 (2026); Watson v. United States, 865 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting\n\n Mottahedeh v. United States, 794 F.3d 347, 352 (2d Cir. 2015)); see also Doe, 76 F.4th at 71\n\n (noting that a party seeking equitable tolling \u201cmust demonstrate . . . first, that some extraordinary\n\n circumstance stood in [her] way and second that [she] has been pursuing [her] rights diligently\u201d\n\n (alterations in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Koch v. Christie\u2019s Int\u2019l\n\n PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 157 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that a showing of reasonable diligence throughout\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 13 of 51 PageID #:\n 2914\n\n\n\n the period a plaintiff seeks to toll and that some extraordinary circumstance prevented a plaintiff\n\n from filing his action in a timely manner are prerequisites for equitable tolling); Polanco, 158\n\n F.3d at 655 (\u201cTo avail himself of this doctrine, the plaintiff must show that he \u2018pass[ed] with\n\n reasonable diligence through the period [he] seeks to have tolled.\u2019\u201d (alterations in original)\n\n (quoting Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1996))). \u201cEquitable tolling is a rare\n\n remedy to be applied in unusual circumstances, not a cure-all for an entirely common state of\n\n affairs.\u201d Watson, 865 F.3d at 133 (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 396 (2007)); see\n\n Clark v. Hanley, 89 F.4th 78, 92 (2d Cir. 2023) (\u201cIn \u2018rare and exceptional circumstances,\u2019 the\n\n statute of limitations governing a \u00a7 1983 claim may be subject to equitable tolling, \u2018where\n\n necessary to prevent unfairness to a plaintiff who is not at fault for her lateness in filing.\u2019\u201d (first\n\n quoting Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560, 564 (2d Cir. 2005); and then quoting Gonzalez v.\n\n Hasty, 651 F.3d 318, 322 (2d Cir. 2011))); Jones v. City of New York, 846 F. App\u2019x 22, 24 (2d\n\n Cir. 2021) (stating that the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim may be equitably tolled\n\n \u201conly in rare and exceptional circumstances\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)); McPartlan-\n\n Hurson v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., 804 F. App\u2019x 41, 43\u201344 (2d Cir. 2020) (rejecting the party\u2019s\n\n late filing because equitable tolling of exhaustion time applies only \u201cin rare and exceptional\n\n circumstances, in which a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his\n\n rights\u201d (quoting Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir. 2003)));\n\n Berrios v. Henri, No. 18-CV-4194, 2021 WL 6197052, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2021) (quoting\n\n same). \u201cThe law prohibits a judge from exercising her discretion where these two elements are\n\n missing.\u201d Doe, 76 F.4th at 71.\n\n Courts will equitably toll statutes of limitations for fraudulent concealment if: \u201c(1) the\n\n defendant concealed the existence of the cause of action from the plaintiff; (2) the concealment\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 14 of 51 PageID #:\n 2915\n\n\n\n prevented plaintiff\u2019s discovery of the claim within the limitations period; and (3) the plaintiff\u2019s\n\n ignorance of the claim did not result from a lack of diligence.\u201d Saint-Jean, 129 F.4th at 143\n\n (citing New York v. Hendrickson Bros., 840 F.2d 1065, 1083 (2d Cir. 1988)); Fromageot v. Britt,\n\n No. 21-CV-1165, 2025 WL 3470473, at *8 (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2025) (quoting id.), appeal\n\n dismissed, No. 26-26 (2d Cir. June 18, 2026); see Koch, 699 F.3d at 157 (stating that a plaintiff\n\n must show: \u201c(1) the defendant wrongfully concealed material facts relating to defendant\u2019s\n\n wrongdoing; (2) the concealment prevented plaintiff\u2019s \u2018discovery of the nature of the claim\n\n within the limitations period\u2019; and (3) plaintiff exercised due diligence in pursuing the discovery\n\n of the claim during the period plaintiff seeks to have tolled\u201d (quoting Corcoran v. N.Y. Power\n\n Auth., 202 F.3d 530, 543 (2d Cir. 1999))). \u201cA plaintiff can prove concealment by showing\n\n \u2018either that the defendant took affirmative steps to prevent the plaintiff\u2019s discovery of his claim\n\n or injury or that the wrong itself was of such a nature as to be self-concealing.\u2019\u201d Saint-Jean, 129\n\n F.4th at 143 (quoting Hendrickson Bros., 840 F.2d at 1083); see SL-x IP S.\u00e0.r.l. v. Merrill Lynch,\n\n Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Nos. 21-2697, 21-2699, 2023 WL 2620041, at *3 (2d Cir. Mar. 24,\n\n 2023) (summary order) (quoting same); In re Google Digit. Advert. Antitrust Litig., 721 F. Supp.\n\n 3d 230, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (quoting same).\n\n Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party alleging fraud or\n\n fraudulent concealment \u201cmust state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or\n\n mistake.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Spencer v. Lab\u2019y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 19-CV-4927, 2024\n\n WL 3675855, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2024) (\u201cA claim of fraudulent concealment must be pled\n\n with particularity, in accordance with the heightened pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).\u201d\n\n (quoting Hinds Cty. v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 620 F. Supp. 2d 499, 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2009))), aff\u2019d,\n\n No. 24-2363, 2025 WL 2779015 (2d Cir. Sep. 30, 2025) (summary order). \u201cGeneralized or\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 15 of 51 PageID #:\n 2916\n\n\n\n conclusory allegations of fraudulent concealment are insufficient to toll a statute of limitations.\u201d\n\n Singh v. Wells, 445 F. App\u2019x 373, 378 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79,\n\n 90 (2d Cir. 1983)). The \u201c[Second] Circuit has explicitly clarified that \u2018fraudulent concealment is\n\n not essential to equitable tolling,\u2019\u201d meaning, the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling is\n\n not limited to causes of fraudulent concealment. Saint-Jean, 129 F.4th at 143 (quoting Valdez ex\n\n rel. Donely v. United States, 518 F.3d 173, 182 (2d Cir. 2008)).\n\n Travelers plausibly pleads the required elements of fraudulent concealment by alleging\n\n that Defendants (1) concealed the alleged fraudulent billing from Travelers, (2) prevented\n\n Travelers from discovering the fraud within the limitations period by verifying each claim\n\n pursuant to New York Insurance Law \u00a7 403(d) 9 and, therefore, Travelers\u2019 reliance on these\n\n verified claims were reasonable, and (3) Travelers exercised due diligence in attempting to\n\n discover the fraud. See Saint-Jean, 129 F.4th at 142.\n\n 1. Concealment of the alleged scheme\n\n Travelers lists various actions by Defendants of the conduct that concealed the alleged\n\n scheme including failing to comply with verifications requests, removing Garcia\u2019s name from\n\n bills submitted to Travelers \u201cto conceal his ongoing involvement in the scheme,\u201d and lying to\n\n\n\n 9\n New York Insurance Law \u00a7 403(d) provides:\n All applications for commercial insurance, individual, group\n or blanket accident and health insurance and all claim forms\n . . . contain a notice in a form approved by the superintendent\n that clearly states in substance the following: \u201cAny person\n who knowingly and with intent to defraud any insurance\n company or other person files an application for insurance\n or statement of claim containing any materially false\n information, or conceals for the purpose of misleading,\n information concerning any fact material thereto, commits a\n fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime, and shall also be\n subject to a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars\n and the stated value of the claim for each such violation.\u201d\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 16 of 51 PageID #:\n 2917\n\n\n\n Travelers regarding whether EMSI sold batteries separately. (See Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 32; Am. Compl.\n\n \u00b6\u00b6 1045\u201361.)\n\n Defendants\u2019 main argument against fraudulent concealment is that Travelers fails to\n\n identify \u201cspecifics regarding why these particular claims are fraudulent\u201d and cites to broad\n\n allegations in the Amended Complaint that could be part of a routine billing dispute. (Defs.\u2019\n\n Reply 12 (citing Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 32\u201334).) However, Defendants ignore the specific information\n\n provided by Travelers, including that the alleged fraud was not discovered until just before the\n\n filing of the Complaint in this action on November 22, 2024, and the allegations that Defendants\n\n submitted materially false information. (See Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 32.) Defendants contend that this\n\n evidence does not constitute fraudulent intent because it is no more than claims submitted by\n\n EMSI \u201cin the ordinary course of its business.\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Reply 12.) However, Travelers\u2019\n\n allegations of fraud are not unreasonable because the billing statements allegedly contained\n\n materially false information not visible on the face of the billing statements. See Gov\u2019t Emps.\n\n Ins. Co. v. Landow, No. 21-CV-1440, 2022 WL 939717, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2022) (finding\n\n it \u201cis reasonable that [the p]laintiffs were not immediately aware of the fraudulent bills because\n\n the insurance claims were allegedly intended to conceal the fraudulent activity\u201d); see also Gov\u2019t\n\n Emps. Ins. Co. v. Erlikh, No. 16-CV-7120, 2019 WL 1487576, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2019)\n\n (finding the knowledge element of fraud was met because GEICO alleged in detail that the\n\n defendants submitted fraudulent claims as part of a scheme \u201cto bill GEICO and the New York\n\n automobile insurance industry for millions of dollars in no-fault insurance benefits they were\n\n never entitled to receive\u201d (internal citation omitted)); Gov\u2019t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Ajudua, No. 15-\n\n CV-5199, 2018 WL 7252961, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018) (finding that the plaintiffs\n\n sufficiently pleaded the knowledge and intent to defraud elements of fraud by alleging \u201cin detail\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 17 of 51 PageID #:\n 2918\n\n\n\n and with specificity, that [the d]efendants not only knew that they were submitting fraudulent\n\n claims for medical services to GEICO, but that they acted intentionally, as part of a calculated\n\n scheme to profit from payment of the claims, and that they actively misrepresented and\n\n concealed information to prevent plaintiffs from discovering that the claims were fraudulent\u201d),\n\n report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Gov\u2019t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Lurie, 2019 WL 276201\n\n (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2019).\n\n Second, Travelers sufficiently pleads that EMSI concealed the fraud because EMSI\n\n verified each claim according to N.Y. Insurance Law \u00a7 403 and the submitted bills certifying that\n\n EMSI was eligible for reimbursement, and this prevented their discovery during the statutory\n\n period. (See Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 1062\u201370.) Courts have found reasonable insurance companies\u2019\n\n reliance on submitted bills that purport to be in accordance with the law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v.\n\n Strobeck, No. 24-CV-1698, 2024 WL 5245543, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2024) (finding\n\n reasonable Allstate\u2019s reliance on the claims submitted by the defendants); State Farm Mut. Auto.\n\n Ins. Co. v. A to Z Med. Care P.C., No. 17-CV-4443, 2019 WL 2489901, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 7,\n\n 2019) (finding that the \u201cplaintiffs sufficiently allege[d] reasonable reliance by explaining State\n\n Farm\u2019s duties under the no-fault laws, and by claiming that State Farm made payments in\n\n reliance on the fact that the bills appeared, on their face, to have been submitted in accordance\n\n with the law\u201d); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Williams, No. 13-CV-2893, 2015 WL 5560543, at *4\n\n (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015) (holding that the plaintiff alleged common law fraud and observing\n\n that \u201cinsurers justifiably may rely on claims forms submitted in support of reimbursement\u201d),\n\n report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 5560546 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2015).\n\n Third, Travelers sufficiently pleads that they exercised due diligence in search of\n\n fraudulent conduct by continuously inquiring into the billing statements and requesting\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 18 of 51 PageID #:\n 2919\n\n\n\n verification. (See Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 1053, 1059\u201361.) As a result, the equitable tolling doctrine of\n\n fraudulent concealment tolls the limitations period for Travelers\u2019 RICO claims. In addition,\n\n because Travelers\u2019 common-law fraud claims arise from the same facts as its RICO claims, the\n\n equitable tolling doctrine of fraudulent concealment also tolls the limitations period for\n\n Travelers\u2019 common-law fraud claims. See Sita v. Kurn Hattin Homes for Child., No. 25-CV-\n\n 239, 2026 WL 323272, at *4 (D. Vt. Feb. 6, 2026) (stating that equitable tolling applies to all of\n\n the plaintiff\u2019s claims where the claims arise from the same material facts); Corns v. Good\n\n Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 23-CV-93, 2024 WL 4008244, at *6 n.10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30,\n\n 2024) (stating that \u201cthe equitable tolling issues appear to be identical for all of [the plaintiff\u2019s]\n\n claims\u201d where her claims arise out of the \u201cfactual circumstances\u201d).\n\n c. Substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy claims\n\n Travelers alleges (1) a substantive RICO claim and (2) a RICO conspiracy claim against\n\n the Individual Defendants. As discussed below, the Court finds that Travelers fails to plead its\n\n RICO claims, and the Court dismisses the RICO claims against the Individual Defendants. In\n\n addition, because the Court dismisses the substantive RICO claim, the Court also dismisses the\n\n RICO conspiracy claim.\n\n \u201cRICO creates a private cause of action for \u2018[a]ny person injured in his business or\n\n property by reason of a violation of section 1962\u2019 of RICO.\u201d Empire Merchs., LLC v. Reliable\n\n Churchill LLLP, 902 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 1964(c)); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tri-Borough NY Med. Prac. P.C., 120 F.4th\n\n 59, 95 (2d Cir. 2024) (similar); Laydon v. Co\u00f6peratieve Rabobank U.A., 55 F.4th 86, 100 (2d\n\n Cir. 2022) (similar); Petroff Amshen LLP v. Alfa Rehab PT PC, No. 21-847, 2022 WL 480475, at\n\n *2 (2d Cir. Feb. 17, 2022) (summary order) (similar). The statute \u201cimposes liability on\n\n individuals working for an \u2018enterprise\u2019 that commits certain predicate crimes that amount to a\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 19 of 51 PageID #:\n 2920\n\n\n\n \u2018pattern of racketeering activity.\u2019\u201d Reich v. Lopez, 858 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting 18\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1962, 1964); see Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., 184 F.4th 130,\n\n 155 (2d Cir. 2026) (quoting 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1962(c)\u2013(d)); Tri-Borough NY Med., 120 F.4th at 95\n\n (\u201cRICO makes it unlawful, inter alia, \u2018for any person employed by or associated with any\n\n enterprise . . . to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise\u2019s\n\n affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt\u2019 or to conspire to\n\n do so.\u201d (alteration in original) (quoting same)).\n\n To establish a substantive RICO claim, a plaintiff must plead \u201c(1) conduct (2) of an\n\n enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.\u201d Yousefzadeh, 184 F.4th at 155\n\n (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)); Lundy v. Cath. Health Sys. of\n\n Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (\u201cTo establish a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff\n\n must allege \u2018(1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity,\u2019\n\n as well as \u2018injury to business or property as a result of the RICO violation.\u2019\u201d (quoting Anatian v.\n\n Coutts Bank (Switz.) Ltd., 193 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1999))); see Curtis v. Greenberg, Nos. 22-\n\n 252, 22-346, 2023 WL 6324324, at *1 (2d Cir. Sep. 29, 2023) (summary order) (quoting Lundy,\n\n 711 F.3d at 119); Butcher v. Wendt, 975 F.3d 236, 241 (2d Cir. 2020) (\u201cTo state a claim of a\n\n substantive RICO violation under [section] 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege, among other things,\n\n two or more predicate acts \u2018constituting a pattern\u2019 of \u2018racketeering activity.\u2019\u201d (quoting Williams\n\n v. Affinion Grp., LLC, 889 F.3d 116, 124 (2d Cir. 2018))); Williams, 889 F.3d at 123\u201324 (\u201cTo\n\n sustain a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(c), a plaintiff must show \u2018(1) that the defendant (2)\n\n through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a pattern (4) of racketeering activity\n\n (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an[] interest in, or participates in (6) an\n\n enterprise (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce.\u2019\u201d (quoting Moss v.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 20 of 51 PageID #:\n 2921\n\n\n\n Morgan Stanley Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983))). \u201cThe Supreme Court has interpreted [the]\n\n phrase [\u2018pattern of racketeering activity\u2019] to require both that the RICO predicates pose a threat\n\n of continuous criminal activity and that they be related to each other.\u201d Reich, 858 F.3d at 59\n\n (citing H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989)); see United States v. Torres, 124\n\n F.4th 84, 95 (2d Cir. 2024) (\u201c[The Second Circuit] ha[s] recognized that the predicate acts\n\n constituting the pattern of racketeering activity \u2018must be related and amount to or pose a threat of\n\n continued criminal activity.\u2019\u201d (quoting United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204, 216 (2d Cir.\n\n 2010))), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 161 (2025), and cert. denied sub nom. Owen v. United States,\n\n 146 S. Ct. 162 (2025). In addition, \u201ca plaintiff must also establish that the underlying \u00a7 1962\n\n RICO violation was \u2018the proximate cause of his injury.\u2019\u201d Empire Merchs., 902 F.3d at 140\n\n (quoting UFCW Loc. 1776 v. Eli Lilly & Co., 620 F.3d 121, 132 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also\n\n Laydon, 55 F.4th at 100 (\u201cTo establish a RICO claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) a violation of the\n\n RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962; (2) an injury to business or property; and (3) that the injury was\n\n caused by the violation of [section] 1962.\u201d (quoting Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC, 720 F.3d 115,\n\n 120 (2d Cir. 2013))); Com. Cleaning Servs., L.L.C. v. Colin Serv. Sys., Inc., 271 F.3d 374, 380\n\n (2d Cir. 2001) (\u201c[A] plaintiff must plead (1) the defendant\u2019s violation of [section] 1962, (2) an\n\n injury to the plaintiff\u2019s business or property, and (3) causation of the injury by the defendant\u2019s\n\n violation.\u201d).\n\n \u201cThe RICO statute defines \u2018enterprise\u2019 as \u2018any individual, partnership, corporation,\n\n association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact\n\n although not a legal entity.\u2019\u201d D\u2019Addario v. D\u2019Addario, 901 F.3d 80, 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting\n\n 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961(4)); see Curtis, 2023 WL 6324324, at *1 (quoting same). A RICO enterprise\n\n can consist of \u201c\u2018a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 21 of 51 PageID #:\n 2922\n\n\n\n course of conduct,\u2019 the existence of which is proven \u2018by evidence of an ongoing organization,\n\n formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.\u2019\u201d\n\n First Cap. Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159, 173 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting\n\n United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981)); O\u2019Neill v. NYU Langone Hosps., No. 23-\n\n CV-4679, 2024 WL 4216501, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2024) (quoting id.), motion for relief\n\n from judgment denied sub nom. O\u2019Neill v. NYU Langone Hosp. Long Island, 2025 WL 3002035\n\n (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025), appeal filed, 25-2978 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2025); King v. Wang, No. 14-\n\n CV-7694, 2020 WL 6875403, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2020) (quoting same). \u201c[T]o establish\n\n liability under \u00a7 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a\n\n \u2018person\u2019; and (2) an \u2018enterprise\u2019 that is not simply the same \u2018person\u2019 referred to by a different\n\n name.\u201d Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 161 (2001). \u201cA corporate\n\n entity can be sued as a RICO \u2018person\u2019 or named as a RICO \u2018enterprise,\u2019 but the same entity\n\n cannot be both the RICO person and the enterprise.\u201d U1it4less, Inc. v. Fedex Corp., 871 F.3d\n\n 199, 205 (2d Cir. 2017) (first quoting 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1961(3), (4); and then citing Anatian, 193\n\n F.3d at 89); see Lynn v. McCormick, 760 F. App\u2019x 51, 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting id.); Cruz, 720\n\n F.3d at 120 (\u201cAs we have long recognized, the plain language and purpose of the [RICO] statute\n\n contemplate that a person violates the statute by conducting an enterprise through a pattern of\n\n criminality. It thus follows that a corporate person cannot violate the statute by corrupting\n\n itself.\u201d (citing Bennett v. U.S. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 770 F.2d 308, 315 (2d Cir. 1985))); see also First\n\n Cap. Asset Mgt., 385 F.3d at 173 (\u201cThe [RICO] enterprise must be separate from the pattern of\n\n racketeering activity and distinct from the person conducting the affairs of the enterprise.\u201d\n\n (citations omitted)). A \u201c\u2018RICO enterprise that consists merely of a corporate defendant\n\n associated with its own employees or agents carrying on the regular affairs of the defendant,\u2019 that\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 22 of 51 PageID #:\n 2923\n\n\n\n consists, in other words, of a corporate defendant \u2018corrupting itself,\u2019\u201d is insufficient to meet this\n\n distinctiveness requirement. U1it4less, 871 F.3d at 206 (first quoting Riverwoods Chappaqua\n\n Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir. 1994); and then quoting Cruz,\n\n 720 F.3d at 120); see Cruz, 720 F.3d at 121 (\u201c[The Second Circuit] ha[s] long since rejected the\n\n idea that a RICO enterprise may consist \u2018merely of a corporate defendant associated with its own\n\n employees or agents carrying on the regular affairs of the defendant\u2019 . . . .\u201d (quoting Riverwoods\n\n Chappaqua Corp., 30 F.3d at 344)); Premium Merch. Funding 26, LLC v. Sonata Constr. LLC,\n\n No. 25-CV-1086, 2026 WL 867165, at *12 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026) (stating that an\n\n \u201centerprise\u201d cannot be established where the allegation is that the individual defendant \u201cwas in\n\n an enterprise consisting only of itself or its own employees\u201d); Palomino Master Ltd. v. Credit\n\n Suisse Grp. AG, No. 25-CV-8264, 2026 WL 848394, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2026) (\u201cWhere\n\n alleged RICO actors \u2018operate within a unified corporate structure\u2019 and are \u2018guided by a single\n\n corporate consciousness,\u2019 the enterprise is not distinct from the persons.\u201d (quoting U1it4less, 871\n\n F.3d at 206\u201309)); Spig Indus., LLC v. Novac Equities LLC, No. 23-CV-8667, 2025 WL 3643955,\n\n at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025) (\u201c[I]f a corporate defendant can be liable for participating in an\n\n enterprise comprised only of its agents \u2014 even if those agents are separately incorporated legal\n\n entities \u2014 then RICO liability will attach to any act of corporate wrong-doing and the statute\u2019s\n\n distinctness requirement will be rendered meaningless.\u201d (quoting U1it4less, 871 F.3d at 205\u2013\n\n 06)), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Spig Indus., LLC v. Advantage Platform\n\n Servs., Inc., 2025 WL 3642396 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025).\n\n In addition to alleging an \u201centerprise,\u201d to sustain a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must\n\n plausibly allege a pattern of racketeering activity, which consists of (1) at least two predicate\n\n acts, \u201cthe last of which occurred within ten years . . . after the commission of a prior act of\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 23 of 51 PageID #:\n 2924\n\n\n\n racketeering activity,\u201d that (2) \u201camount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.\u201d Grace\n\n Int\u2019l Assembly of God v. Festa, 797 F. App\u2019x 603, 605 (2d Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (first\n\n quoting 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961(5); and then quoting Cofacr\u00e8dit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co.,\n\n 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir. 1999)); see Sullivan v. UBS AG, 149 F.4th 206, 222 (2d Cir. 2025)\n\n (stating that a plaintiff \u201cneed[s] to allege at least two predicate acts of wire fraud\u201d); One World,\n\n LLC v. Onoufriadis, No. 21-374, 2021 WL 4452070, at *2 (2d Cir. Sep. 29, 2021) (summary\n\n order) (quoting 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961(5)); Butcher, 975 F.3d at 241 (\u201cTo state a claim of a\n\n substantive RICO violation under [section] 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege, among other things,\n\n two or more predicate acts \u2018constituting a pattern\u2019 of \u2018racketeering activity.\u2019\u201d (quoting Williams,\n\n 889 F.3d at 124)). \u201c[A]llegations of frivolous, fraudulent, or baseless litigation activities \u2014\n\n without more \u2014 cannot constitute a RICO predicate act.\u201d Tri-Borough NY Med., 120 F.4th at 98\n\n n.14 (quoting Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2018)); see Corsini v. Reich, No. 25-2710,\n\n 2026 WL 1397229, at *1 (2d Cir. May 19, 2026) (summary order) (quoting same); Dees v. Knox,\n\n No. 24-1574, 2025 WL 485019, at *2 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2025) (summary order) (quoting same),\n\n cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 201 (2025).\n\n Mail fraud is a RICO predicate act. See 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961(1) (setting forth a list of\n\n predicate acts, including mail fraud); Aghaeepour v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., No. 25-548, 2026 WL\n\n 1183399, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026) (summary order) (stating that predicate acts include mail\n\n fraud and wire fraud); United States v. Capers, 20 F.4th 105, 121 (2d Cir. 2021) (stating that\n\n RICO covers mail fraud); Bascu\u00f1\u00e1n v. Elsaca, 927 F.3d 108, 120\u201321 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining\n\n mail fraud is a predicate act for civil RICO claims). \u201cThe essential elements of mail and wire\n\n fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use\n\n of the mails or wires to further the scheme.\u201d United States v. Runner, 143 F.4th 146, 154 (2d\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 24 of 51 PageID #:\n 2925\n\n\n\n Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Weaver, 860 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2017)); Bascu\u00f1\u00e1n, 927\n\n F.3d at 122 (\u201cThere are three \u2018essential elements\u2019 to mail or wire fraud: \u2018(1) a scheme to defraud,\n\n (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the\n\n scheme.\u2019\u201d (quoting same)); see Gov. Emps. Ins. Co. v. Infinity Health Prods., Ltd., No. 10-CV-\n\n 5611, 2012 WL 1427796, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2012) (\u201cPleading mail fraud requires: (1) the\n\n existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the use of United States mails . . . to further that scheme;\n\n and (3) evidence that defendants did so with a specific intent to defraud.\u201d), report and\n\n recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1432213 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2012); see also Red Rock\n\n Sourcing LLC v. JGX LLC, No. 21-CV-1054, 2024 WL 1243325, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22,\n\n 2024) (explaining that the first element, a scheme to defraud, requires proof of \u201c(i) the existence\n\n of a scheme to defraud, (ii) the requisite scienter (or fraudulent intent) on the part of the\n\n defendant, and (iii) the materiality of the misrepresentations\u201d (quoting United States v. Autuori,\n\n 212 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2000))). While \u201cthe mail or wire communications themselves need\n\n not contain a false statement . . . a plaintiff still needs to allege a material misrepresentation as\n\n part of the defendants\u2019 scheme to fraud to state a violation of section 1341 or 1343.\u201d Williams,\n\n 889 F.3d at 125; see Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., 758 F.3d 473, 488 (2d Cir. 2014)\n\n (\u201cAlthough the mailed or wired communication need not itself be fraudulent . . . it must . . . be\n\n made in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\u201d); Bayshore Cap. Advisors, LLC v. Creative\n\n Wealth Media Fin. Corp., 667 F. Supp. 3d 83, 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (quoting Crawford, 758 F.3d\n\n at 488).\n\n Moreover, \u201cmail fraud schemes do not require a defendant to know about the specific\n\n mailing\u201d but require a showing that the defendant \u201cacted with knowledge that the use of the\n\n mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or that such use can reasonably be foreseen,\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 25 of 51 PageID #:\n 2926\n\n\n\n even though not actually intended.\u201d United States v. Rutigliano, 790 F.3d 389, 397 (2d Cir.\n\n 2015) (quoting United States v. Tocco, 135 F.3d 116, 124 (2d Cir. 1998)); see Red Rock\n\n Sourcing, 2024 WL 1243325, at *14 (stating that under the mail and wire fraud statutes \u201ca\n\n plaintiff need not allege \u2018that the defendants have personally used the mails or wires; it is\n\n sufficient that a defendant causes the use of the mails or wires\u2019\u201d (quoting Sobel v. Fleck, No. 03-\n\n CV-1041, 2003 WL 22839799, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2003), report and recommendation\n\n adopted, 2004 WL 48877 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8. 2004))); Allstate Ins. Co. v. New Cent. Pharm. Inc.,\n\n No. 19-CV-5702, 2021 WL 7830141, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021) (\u201cTo properly allege the\n\n \u2018use of interstate mails,\u2019 the plaintiff need not allege that each defendant sent a piece of mail;\n\n rather, \u2018it need only be shown that [each defendant] acted with knowledge that the use of the\n\n mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or that such use can reasonably be foreseen,\n\n even though not actually intended.\u2019\u201d (alteration in original) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nazarov,\n\n No. 11-CV-6187, 2015 WL 5774459, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2015))), report and\n\n recommendation adopted, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24,\n\n 2022).\n\n Allegations of mail fraud are governed by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\n Procedure and must be pled with particularity. See Sullivan, 149 F.4th at 221 (\u201c[The Second\n\n Circuit] ha[s] long held that RICO claims premised on predicate acts that sound in fraud,\n\n including wire fraud, must satisfy the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b).\u201d); Williams,\n\n 889 F.3d at 124 (\u201cThe elements of mail and wire fraud must be pled with particularity.\u201d); Babb v.\n\n Capitalsource, Inc., 588 F. App\u2019x 66, 68 (2d Cir. 2015) (discussing pleading requirements under\n\n RICO for fraudulent predicate acts); Curtis v. L. Offs. of David M. Bushman, Esq., 443 F. App\u2019x\n\n 582, 584 (2d Cir. 2011) (same); Spool v. World Child Int\u2019l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178, 185\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 26 of 51 PageID #:\n 2927\n\n\n\n (2d Cir. 2008) (same); Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273, 290\u201391 (2d Cir. 2006) (same).\n\n As the Second Circuit has explained, \u201cRule 9(b) serves several purposes. \u2018[I]t is designed to\n\n provide a defendant with fair notice of a plaintiff\u2019s claim, to safeguard a defendant\u2019s reputation\n\n from improvident charges of wrongdoing, and to protect a defendant against the institution of a\n\n strike suit.\u2019\u201d Miller v. U.S. ex rel. Miller, 110 F.4th 533, 544 (2d Cir. 2024) (alteration in\n\n original) (quoting O\u2019Brien v. Nat\u2019l Prop. Analysts Partners, 936 F.2d 674, 676 (2d Cir. 1991)).\n\n \u201cIt also discourages plaintiffs from using the litigation process to discover hypothetical\n\n wrongdoing.\u201d Id. (citing Madonna v. United States, 878 F.2d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 1989)). \u201c\u2018Bare-\n\n bones allegations\u2019 therefore do not suffice.\u201d McNaughton v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, 67\n\n F.4th 89, 99 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Lundy, 711 F.3d at 119).\n\n To meet the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard, \u201c[a]llegations of predicate [mail\n\n and] wire fraud acts should state the contents of the communications, who was involved, [and]\n\n where and when they took place, and [should] explain why they were fraudulent.\u201d Sullivan, 149\n\n F.4th at 221 (second alteration added) (quoting Spool, 520 F.3d at 185); Farag v. XYZ Two Way\n\n Radio Serv., Inc., No. 22-1795, 2023 WL 2770219, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2023) (summary order)\n\n (quoting Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170, 1176 (2d Cir. 1993)); Williams, 889 F.3d\n\n at 124 (citing Mills, 12 F.3d at 1175); Spool, 520 F.3d at 185 (quoting Mills, 12 F.3d at 1176);\n\n see also Purchase Real Est. Grp. v. Jones, No. 05-CV-10859, 2010 WL 3377504, at *8\n\n (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010) (\u201cUnder Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud in the RICO context must be\n\n made with particularity and must \u2018specify the statements [plaintiffs] claim [ ] were false or\n\n misleading, give particulars as to the respect in which plaintiffs contend the statements were\n\n fraudulent, state when and where the statements were made, and identify those responsible for\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 27 of 51 PageID #:\n 2928\n\n\n\n the statements.\u2019\u201d (alterations in original) (quoting Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 189 F.3d 165,\n\n 172\u201373 (2d Cir. 1999))).\n\n Where multiple defendants accused of mail or wire fraud, plaintiffs \u201cneed to allege at\n\n least two predicate acts of wire fraud \u2018as to each individual defendant.\u2019\u201d Sullivan, 149 F.4th at\n\n 222 (quoting DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 306 (2d Cir. 2001)); Herrera v. Comme des\n\n Garcons, Ltd., 84 F.4th 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2023) (\u201c[A] complaint alleging fraud committed by\n\n multiple defendants \u2018should inform each defendant of the nature of his alleged participation in\n\n the fraud.\u2019\u201d (quoting DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., 822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d Cir.\n\n 1987))); DeFalco, 244 F.3d at 306 (\u201cThe requirements of section 1962(c) must be established as\n\n to each individual defendant.\u201d); Mondelus v. August W. Dev., LLC, No. 19-CV-4832, 2022 WL\n\n 182363, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2022) (\u201c[W]here . . . \u2018multiple defendants are accused of mail\n\n and wire fraud, the plaintiff must particularize and prove each defendant\u2019s participation in the\n\n fraud as well as each defendant\u2019s involvement in the two necessary predicate acts.\u2019\u201d (quoting\n\n GWG MCA Cap., Inc. v. Nulook Cap., LLC, No. 17-CV-1724, 2020 WL 10508196, at *8\n\n (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2020))); J.T. v. de Blasio, 500 F. Supp. 3d 137, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)\n\n (\u201cWhere multiple defendants are accused of mail or wire fraud, plaintiffs must plead [with]\n\n particularity as to each defendant . . . .\u201d (quoting U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv.,\n\n Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 432, 443\u201344 (S.D.N.Y. 2004))), aff\u2019d in part, appeal dismissed in part sub\n\n nom. K.M. v. Adams, No. 20-4128, 2022 WL 4352040 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2022) (summary order);\n\n United Limousine Serv., 303 F. Supp. 2d at 444 (quoting Allen v. New World Coffee, Inc., No.\n\n 00-CV-2610, 2001 WL 293683, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2001)).\n\n A plaintiff need not allege that each defendant itself made a misrepresentation, but rather\n\n must allege sufficient facts showing each defendant\u2019s knowing or intentional participation in the\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 28 of 51 PageID #:\n 2929\n\n\n\n alleged scheme to defraud. See Edmondson v. Raniere, No. 20-CV-485, 2025 WL 2590385, at\n\n *5 n.9 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 8, 2025) (\u201cBut when a RICO plaintiff alleges a mail or wire fraud\n\n predicate, she need not allege that a given defendant made the challenged misstatement, so long\n\n as she alleges sufficient facts showing that defendant\u2019s \u2018knowing or intentional participation\u2019 in a\n\n scheme to defraud.\u201d (quoting S.Q.K.F.C., Inc. v. Bell Atl. TriCon Leasing Corp., 84 F.3d 629,\n\n 633 (2d Cir. 1996))); Hagigi v. Yukhananov, No. 23-CV-5549, 2024 WL 4028333, at *4\n\n (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 3, 2024) (\u201cPlaintiffs need not allege that each defendant itself made a\n\n misrepresentation, but rather must allege sufficient facts showing each defendant\u2019s knowing or\n\n intentional participation in the alleged scheme to defraud.\u201d); Paul Hobbs Imps. Inc. v. Verity\n\n Wines LLC, No. 21-CV-10597, 2023 WL 374120, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2023) (\u201c[A]\n\n complaint adequately alleges each defendant\u2019s commission of mail or wire fraud \u2018as long as [it]\n\n allege[s] sufficient facts showing each defendant\u2019s knowing or intentional participation in the\n\n alleged scheme to defraud.\u2019\u201d (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Williams v.\n\n Equitable Acceptance Corp., 443 F. Supp. 3d 480, 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2020))); see also Red Rock\n\n Sourcing, 2024 WL 1243325, at *15 (\u201c\u2018Although Rule 9(b) permits knowledge to be averred\n\n generally, plaintiffs must still plead the events which they claim give rise to an inference of\n\n knowledge.\u2019 A sufficient factual basis for fraudulent intent may consist of allegations as to who\n\n \u2018possessed . . . knowledge\u2019 of the fraud, \u2018when and how they obtained [that] knowledge,\u2019 or even\n\n why they \u2018should have known\u2019 of the fraud.\u201d (alterations in original) (quoting Devaney v.\n\n Chester, 813 F.2d 566, 568 (2d Cir. 1987))).\n\n \u201cTo establish the existence of a RICO conspiracy, a plaintiff must prove \u2018the existence of\n\n an agreement to violate RICO\u2019s substantive provisions.\u2019\u201d Cofacr\u00e8dit, 187 F.3d at 244 (quoting\n\n United States v. Sessa, 125 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir. 1997)); see 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(d) (stating that a\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 29 of 51 PageID #:\n 2930\n\n\n\n person violates the statute if he or she \u201cconspire[s] to violate any of the\u201d RICO provisions); Jordan\n\n v. Tilzer, No. 21-1938, 2022 WL 16544335, at *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2022) (summary order)\n\n (quoting Sessa, 125 F.3d at 71); Onoufriadis, 2021 WL 4452070, at *1 (quoting Williams, 889\n\n F.3d at 124); Morin v. Trupin, 835 F. Supp. 126, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (stating that to establish a\n\n RICO civil conspiracy claim, \u201c[t]he complaint [ ] must specifically allege [ ] an agreement\u201d to\n\n \u201ccommit predicate acts\u201d). Furthermore, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant \u201cunderstood\n\n the scope of the enterprise and knowingly agreed to further its affairs through the commission of\n\n various offenses.\u201d Morin, 835 F. Supp. at 136 (quoting Morin v. Trupin, 747 F. Supp. 1051, 1067\n\n (S.D.N.Y. 1990)); see Infinity Health Prods., 2012 WL 1427796, at *7 (citing id.). This\n\n requirement may be satisfied by showing that a defendant \u201cpossessed knowledge of only the\n\n general contours of the conspiracy.\u201d Gov\u2019t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Hollis Med. Care, P.C., No. 10-CV-\n\n 4341, 2011 WL 5507426, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2011) (quoting United States v. Applins, 637\n\n F.3d 59, 75 (2d Cir. 2011)).\n\n When a plaintiff relies on the same factual predicate to plead both a substantive RICO\n\n violation and conspiracy claim, if the plaintiff fails to adequately plead a substantive RICO\n\n claim, the plaintiff cannot adequately plead a conspiracy claim. See Curtis, 2023 WL 6324324,\n\n at *2 (explaining that a \u201cRICO conspiracy claims fail when the \u2018alleged conspiracy involved an\n\n agreement to commit the same substantive RICO violations the [c]ourt has deemed insufficiently\n\n pled\u2019\u201d (alteration omitted) (quoting Williams, 889 F.3d at 126)); Zamora v. FIT Int\u2019l Grp. Corp.,\n\n 834 F. App\u2019x 622, 626 (2d Cir. 2020) (\u201c[The p]laintiffs\u2019 failure to state a claim for a substantive\n\n RICO violation is fatal to their RICO conspiracy claim under \u00a7 1962(d), given that [the\n\n p]laintiffs rely on the same factual predicate to plead both the substantive RICO violation and the\n\n conspiracy claim . . . .\u201d); Smulley v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 754 F. App\u2019x 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2018)\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 30 of 51 PageID #:\n 2931\n\n\n\n (holding, in the federal RICO context, that \u201cwithout a sufficiently pleaded substantive RICO\n\n violation under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(c), [a] conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(d) fails as\n\n well\u201d); Lynn, 760 F. App\u2019x at 54 (\u201c[The plaintiffs\u2019] failure to plead a substantive RICO claim\n\n under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(c) necessarily defeats their conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 1962(d).\u201d); Williams, 889 F.3d at 126 (concluding that the plaintiffs\u2019 RICO conspiracy claim\n\n fails where \u201c[t]he alleged conspiracy involved an agreement to commit the same substantive\n\n RICO violations [the court] ha[s] deemed insufficiently pled, and the plaintiffs have not alleged\n\n any further acts that, if carried out, would have satisfied RICO\u2019s requirement of a pattern of\n\n racketeering\u201d). To plead a RICO conspiracy, \u201ca plaintiff must allege \u2018the existence of an\n\n agreement to violate RICO\u2019s substantive provisions.\u2019\u201d Williams, 889 F.3d at 124 (quoting Sessa,\n\n 125 F.3d at 71); Hubbuch v. Cap. One, N.A., No. 25-CV-406, 2025 WL 1983218, at *7\n\n (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2025) (quoting Cofacr\u00e8dit, 187 F.3d at 244), report and recommendation\n\n adopted, 2025 WL 1934472 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2025); Nyg\u00e5rd v. Bacon, No. 19-CV-1559, 2021\n\n WL 3721347, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021) (\u201cIf a complaint fails to state a substantive RICO\n\n claim, it also does not state a claim for RICO conspiracy.\u201d).\n\n i. Substantive RICO claim\n\n Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Travelers\u2019 substantive RICO claim\n\n because it fails to plausibly allege a RICO claim, or allege it with the required specificity.\n\n (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 22\u201328.) First, Defendants contend that Travelers fails to plead a cognizable RICO\n\n enterprise because it does not satisfy the \u201cdistinctness\u201d requirement pursuant to RICO. (Id. at 7\u2013\n\n 12; Defs.\u2019 Reply 4\u20136.) Second, Defendants argue that even if Travelers pleaded a cognizable\n\n RICO enterprise, its RICO claim fails to plead that the Individual Defendants personally\n\n committed a predict act under RICO. (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 24\u201328.)\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 31 of 51 PageID #:\n 2932\n\n\n\n Travelers argues that it sufficiently states its substantive RICO claim. First, Travelers\n\n contends that it sufficiently satisfies the \u201cdistinctness\u201d requirement. (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 20\u201322.)\n\n Second, Travelers argues that it sufficiently pleads the Individual Defendants\u2019 conduct and\n\n participation in the fraudulent scheme. (Id. at 24\u201328.)\n\n 1. Travelers has not sufficiently pleaded an enterprise\n\n Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Travelers\u2019 RICO claims because it fails\n\n to establish that EMSI is an enterprise, the first element of a RICO claim. In support, Defendants\n\n contend that Travelers\u2019 allegations against the Individual Defendants describes \u201ca business\n\n operating in a highly regulated industry and acting through its executives.\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Reply 5.)\n\n Defendants therefore argue that \u201cthe alleged pattern of alleged racketeering activity is not\n\n pleaded as being distinct from the alleged enterprise itself.\u201d (Id. at 6.)\n\n Travelers argue that it sufficiently pleads a \u201clegal-entity enterprise consisting of EMSI (a\n\n legitimate corporate entity), through which the Individual Defendants conducted racketeering\n\n activity.\u201d (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 20.) In support, Travelers contends that \u201c[w]here the alleged enterprise is\n\n a legal entity and the participant [d]efendants are distinct natural persons, as is the case in this\n\n matter, the distinctness requirement is easily satisfied.\u201d (Id. at 22.)\n\n Travelers fails to establish an \u201centerprise.\u201d Travelers argues that the RICO \u201centerprise\u201d\n\n is EMSI and the RICO \u201cpersons\u201d are the Individual Defendants, (see Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 22), and alleges\n\n that the Individual Defendants \u201cparticipated in the operation and management of the EMSI\n\n enterprise,\u201d (Am. Compl. \u00b6 44), \u201cwith the intent to bill Travelers (and other similarly-situated\n\n insurers) for false and fraudulent DME,\u201d (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 13). Travelers fails to show that the RICO\n\n \u201centerprise,\u201d EMSI, is sufficiently distinct from the RICO \u201cperson,\u201d the Individual Defendants,\n\n because the Individual Defendants were acting within the scope of their corporate roles, and\n\n Travelers therefore fails to establish an enterprise. See Cruz, 720 F.3d at 120\u201321 (finding no\n\n\n 31\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 32 of 51 PageID #:\n 2933\n\n\n\n enterprise where the plaintiff alleged that that the RICO enterprise consisted, inter alia, of the\n\n company-defendant, its chief operating officer, and its managing director and corporate counsel,\n\n who carried out the regular affairs of the company-defendant); Palomino Master Ltd., 2026 WL\n\n 848394, at *11\u201312 (finding no enterprise where the plaintiffs alleged \u201cno association with any\n\n entity outside [the corporation-defendant], no structure separate from the corporation itself, and\n\n no purpose distinct from the corporation\u2019s own business\u201d because \u201c[a] corporation acting\n\n together with its own officers and agents, within the scope of their corporate roles, does not\n\n constitute an enterprise separate from the corporation itself\u201d); Orrego v. Pasternack Tilker\n\n Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, No. 23-CV-6507, 2026 WL 124813, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.\n\n Jan. 16, 2026) (finding no enterprise where the amended complaint names the company as a\n\n defendant and does not allege any other entity or group as an enterprise), appeal dismissed, No.\n\n 25-2234, 2026 WL 1296235 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2026); Reca v. Flashdot Ltd., No. 24-CV-6316,\n\n 2026 WL 82702, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026) (finding no enterprise where the plaintiffs failed\n\n to sufficiently allege that the defendants formed an enterprise separate and distinct from the\n\n corporation); Long v. Zhuang, No. 22-CV-1293, 2024 WL 4250308, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8,\n\n 2024) (\u201c[T]he defendants cannot be grouped together for the sole reason that they all allegedly\n\n had [involvement] in the alleged acts . . . [the p]laintiffs\u2019 failure to distinguish between the\n\n enterprise and its alleged illegal acts is fatal to the RICO claims.\u201d (first alteration in original)\n\n (citation omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, Order Adopting Report and\n\n Recommendation (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2024); cf. Premium Merch. Funding 26, 2026 WL 867165,\n\n at *12 (finding an enterprise where the corporation worked with another closely related entity to\n\n \u201cengage[] in a coordinated scheme of fraudulent lending and unlawful debt collection\u201d); Gov\u2019t\n\n Emps. Ins. Co. v. J Flexible Corp., No. 25-CV-6700, 2026 WL 743292, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17,\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 33 of 51 PageID #:\n 2934\n\n\n\n 2026) (finding an enterprise where the individual defendant \u201ccontrolled the two [durable medical\n\n equipment] supplier defendants\u201d that make up the enterprise); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Geykhman, No.\n\n 24-CV-4580, 2025 WL 2576749, at *2, 8 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2025) (finding an enterprise where\n\n the plaintiff alleged a \u201ctripartite grouping[]\u201d of defendants involving (1) \u201ca network of\n\n fraudulently incorporated professional corporations,\u201d (2) owned by licensed physical therapists\n\n who were (3) managed by non-licensed laypersons), report and recommendation adopted, Order\n\n Adopting Report and Recommendations (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2026).\n\n Travelers\u2019 reliance on Cedric Kushner 10 to argue that it has \u201ceasily satisfied\u201d the\n\n distinctness requirement, (see Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 22 (quoting 533 U.S. at 161)), is unpersuasive because\n\n \u201cthe Supreme Court emphasized that its holding [in Cedric Kushner] was limited to the\n\n circumstances in which \u2018a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation\n\n of which he is the sole owner \u2014 whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond\n\n the scope, of corporate authority.\u2019\u201d U1it4less, 871 F.3d at 207\u201308 (quoting Cedric Kushner, 533\n\n U.S. at 166). In other words, distinctness for the purposes of RICO can be satisfied when the\n\n RICO \u201cperson\u201d is the \u201csole owner\u201d of a corporation and the \u201centerprise\u201d is the same corporation.\n\n See Cedric Kushner, 533 U.S. at 161. The Supreme Court\u2019s analysis is inapplicable here\n\n because Travelers does not allege that the RICO \u201cperson\u201d is only Garcia, the \u201csole owner\u201d of\n\n EMSI. Instead, Travelers alleges that Garcia and the remaining Individual Defendants \u2014\n\n\n\n\n 10\n Cedric Kushner involved \u201ca person who is the president and sole shareholder of a\n closely held corporation.\u201d Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 160 (2001).\n The plaintiff alleged that (1) the defendant was the RICO \u201cperson\u201d and (2) the defendant\u2019s\n company was the RICO \u201centerprise,\u201d for which the defendant was the president and sole\n shareholder. Id. The Supreme Court concluded that distinctness was satisfied where \u201ca\n corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole\n owner \u2014 whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate\n authority.\u201d Id. at 166.\n\n\n 33\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 34 of 51 PageID #:\n 2935\n\n\n\n Muley, Dacey-Zavalianos, and Alfonso \u2014 are the RICO \u201cperson[s].\u201d Therefore, in alleging four\n\n RICO \u201cpersons,\u201d of which only one is an owner of EMSI, Travelers fails to satisfy the\n\n distinctiveness requirement for the purposes of RICO because, as discussed above, distinctness\n\n cannot be satisfied when the enterprise consists of a corporation and its own agents acting within\n\n the scope of their corporate roles. See U1it4less, 871 F.3d at 206\u201309 (stating that an enterprise is\n\n not distinct from the persons where the alleged RICO persons \u201coperate within a unified corporate\n\n structure\u201d and are \u201cguided by a single corporate consciousness\u201d (quoting Cruz, 720 F.3d at\n\n 121)); Palomino Master Ltd., 2026 WL 848394, at *11 (concluding that the plaintiffs failed to\n\n meet the distinctness requirement where the plaintiffs \u201callege no association with any entity\n\n outside [of the corporation-defendant], no structure separate from the corporation itself, and no\n\n purpose distinct from the corporation\u2019s own business\u201d because \u201ceven if an enterprise is distinct\n\n from the pattern of racketeering activity, a claim still fails if the enterprise is not distinct from the\n\n defendant \u2018person\u2019\u201d); DarkPulse, Inc. v. EMA Fin., LLC, No. 22-CV-45, 2023 WL 2307386, at\n\n *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023) (collecting cases that rejected RICO claims where the alleged RICO\n\n \u201centerprise\u201d was \u201ca corporation associating with its own employees or a related corporate entity\n\n that functionally acted as a single unit with the RICO \u2018person\u2019\u201d); cf. Lateral Recovery LLC v.\n\n Funderz.net, LLC, No. 22-CV-2170, 2024 WL 4350369, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2024)\n\n (stating that the distinctness requirement would not be violated where the RICO \u201cperson\u201d is the\n\n owner and manager of the RICO \u201centerprise\u201d).\n\n Because Travelers fails to establish an enterprise, which is the first prong of a RICO\n\n claim, its RICO claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1962(c) fails. 11\n\n\n\n 11\n Although the Court finds that Travelers fails to establish an \u201centerprise,\u201d the Court\n nevertheless addresses whether Travelers establishes \u201ca pattern of racketeering activity.\u201d See\n Reich v. Lopez, 858 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2017) (stating that 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1962 and 1964\n\n\n 34\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 35 of 51 PageID #:\n 2936\n\n\n\n 2. Travelers has not sufficiently pleaded that the Individual\n Defendants participated in the alleged scheme to defraud\n Travelers\n\n Defendants argue that Travelers fails to sufficiently plead that the \u201cthe Individual\n\n Defendants personally committed two or more acts of \u2018racketeering activity,\u2019\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 25),\n\n because: (1) Travelers \u201cmerely identified the Individual Defendants from the EMSI website and\n\n the NY Medicaid Provider application and proceeded to find publicly available information . . .\n\n to create conclusory allegations\u201d in the Amended Complaint that the Individual Defendants,\n\n \u201ccollectively and without differentiation, committed the elements of fraud and RICO, including\n\n RICO predicate acts,\u201d (id. at 28); (2) \u201c[a]llegations specific to any of the Individual Defendants\n\n merely describe innocent conduct in the ordinary course of business,\u201d (id.); (3) \u201cthe allegations\n\n particular to the Individual Defendants consist of a handful of benign facts derived from readily\n\n available sources that merely describe ordinary business responsibilities,\u201d (id. at 27); and (4) the\n\n \u201callegations [ ] advanc[ing] the \u2018naked assertion\u2019 that the Individual Defendants actively\n\n participated in fraud . . . are pure speculation devoid of the essential \u2018factual enhancement,\u2019\u201d (id.\n\n at 26).\n\n Travelers argues that it has sufficiently pleaded with particularity that the Individual\n\n Defendants participated in the alleged scheme to defraud travelers. (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 22.) In support,\n\n Travelers contends that the Amended Complaint \u201calleges that each Individual Defendant\n\n occupied a position of authority within EMSI[] and knowingly participated in directing the\n\n scheme alleged,\u201d as it alleges \u201ceach Individual Defendants\u2019 responsibilities\u201d and how \u201ceach\n\n Individual Defendant was a member of the EMSI executive team that designed, implemented,\n\n and oversaw the corrupt LOMN protocol.\u201d (Id. at 25.)\n\n\n \u201cimposes liability on individuals working for an \u2018enterprise\u2019 that commits certain predicate\n crimes that amount to a \u2018pattern of racketeering activity\u2019\u201d (quoting 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1962, 1964)).\n\n\n 35\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 36 of 51 PageID #:\n 2937\n\n\n\n Travelers sufficiently alleges with particularity the existence of a scheme to defraud.\n\n First, Travelers specifies the false or misleading statements, which are the misrepresentations and\n\n omissions regarding EMSI\u2019s eligibility for and entitlement to reimbursement of benefits under\n\n the (1) no-fault regulations of New York, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania and (2) workers\u2019\n\n compensation regulations of New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Second, Travelers\n\n identifies EMSI as responsible for the statements. Third, Travelers states when and where the\n\n statements were made, which are (1) from 2014 to the present and (2) in claims and supporting\n\n documentation mailed to Travelers. Finally, Travelers explains why these statements are\n\n fraudulent \u2014 the reimbursement claims were for TENS/NMES Devices and supplies that were\n\n unlawful, unnecessary, medically worthless, billed pursuant to a predetermined treatment\n\n protocol, and fraudulently billed.\n\n However, Travelers fails to sufficiently establish the Individual Defendants\u2019 knowing and\n\n intentional participation in the scheme. Travelers alleges in the Amended Complaint that the\n\n Individual Defendants were members of an \u201cexecutive team\u201d that created the LOMN and its\n\n policies, (see Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 107, 110), however, this allegation is insufficient to establish the\n\n Individual Defendants\u2019 knowing and intentional participation in the scheme because Travelers\n\n does not provide any particularized facts as to the role of the Individual Defendants in creating\n\n the LOMN and its policies.\n\n In addition, Travelers\u2019 sole allegations particularized to each Individual Defendant are\n\n general allegations of their titles and responsibilities at EMSI that do not plausibly link any of the\n\n alleged fraudulent conduct to the Individual Defendants. First, Travelers alleges that Muley, as\n\n EMSI\u2019s president, \u201cwas responsible for the operational efficiency and integrity of EMSI,\n\n including the company\u2019s adherence to billing regulations.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 64.) Second, Travelers alleges\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 37 of 51 PageID #:\n 2938\n\n\n\n that Alfonso, as EMSI\u2019s Executive Vice President of Finance, \u201cnecessarily had to approve the\n\n procedures for billing and collection\u201d of fraudulent bills mailed to Travelers, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 88, 1016),\n\n by virtue of his creation and enforcement of \u201cthe internal mechanisms governing how sales were\n\n recorded, claims were submitted, and revenue was recognized,\u201d (id. \u00b6 85). Third, Travelers\n\n alleges that Dacey-Zavalianos, as EMSI\u2019s Executive Vice President of Operations, directly\n\n oversaw billing and accounts receivables and \u201croutinely analyzed billings to insurance company\n\n payors and enforced EMSI billing protocols.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 74, 952.) Finally, Travelers alleges that\n\n Garcia, as founder, chairman, and owner of EMSI, had sole control over EMSI\u2019s bank account,\n\n participated in developing and executing EMSI\u2019s business and marketing strategy, convened\n\n EMSI\u2019s management team, and is listed as the authorized official on EMSI National Provider ID\n\n and the National Provider ID is listed on every fraudulent claim. (Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 13\u201314.) These\n\n allegations amount to generic allegations of routine business responsibilities from which it would\n\n be speculative to conclude that the Individual Defendants directed the alleged scheme or had any\n\n direct role in, or knowledge of, the scheme. 12 See Lynn v. McCormick, No. 17-CV-1183, 2017\n\n WL 6507112, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017) (concluding that the plaintiffs failed to plead a\n\n plausible RICO claim against the CEO of a bank that was alleged to be part of an enterprise that\n\n forced the plaintiffs into loans and subsequent defaults because there were no allegations that the\n\n CEO \u201ccommitted, or had anything to do with, any of the allegedly fraudulent acts\u201d), aff\u2019d, 760 F.\n\n App\u2019x 51 (2d Cir. 2019); cf. Aghaeepour v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., No. 14-CV-5449, 2015 WL\n\n 7758894, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015) (concluding allegations of a fraudulent scheme that\n\n\n\n 12\n The Court does not address Travelers\u2019 remaining allegations regarding (1) EMSI\u2019s\n strategic plan, (Am. Compl. \u00b6 935), and (2) settlements of False Claims Act allegations, (id. \u00b6\u00b6\n 731\u201332), because these allegations were also in the Complaint and the Court previously found\n these allegations unpersuasive in the September 2025 Decision. (See Sep. 2025 Decision 43\u2013\n 45.)\n\n\n 37\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 38 of 51 PageID #:\n 2939\n\n\n\n \u201cstem[med] from the origination of leases\u201d sufficiently pleaded the participation of the corporate\n\n defendant\u2019s vice president of operations because in addition to providing the defendant\u2019s job\n\n title, the complaint \u201cdemonstrate[d] [his] participation in the scheme\u201d including that he \u201c[was]\n\n responsible for day-to-day operations and lease originations\u201d), order corrected on other grounds\n\n on denial of reconsideration, 2016 WL 828130 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2016); Angermeir v. Cohen,\n\n 14 F. Supp. 3d 134, 140\u201348 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding that the plaintiffs stated RICO claims\n\n against an officer and a \u201ccontrolling person[]\u201d of a company that forged small business\n\n equipment leases and \u201cbull[ied]\u201d out-of-state plaintiffs into paying the leases through \u201cbogus\n\n lawsuits\u201d because the plaintiffs \u201cspecifically allege[d] the role each [i]ndividual [d]efendant\n\n played in the scheme\u201d including that the vice president of operations \u201cverified complaints filed\u201d\n\n in the bogus lawsuits and held responsibility for \u201cseveral aspects\u201d of the \u201cday-to-day operations,\n\n lease originations, and sales\u201d and the legal administrative manager \u201cverified and notarized\n\n complaints\u201d and mailed the summons and complaint to a named plaintiff (internal citations\n\n omitted)).\n\n In the absence of any specific facts about the Individual Defendants beyond their titles\n\n and general descriptions of their corporate responsibilities, Travelers does not allege sufficient\n\n facts from which the Court can infer that the Individual Defendants participated in the alleged\n\n fraud. Instead, Travelers alleges that because the Individual Defendants held management\n\n positions at EMSI during the relevant period, they directly participated in or facilitated the\n\n fraudulent billing of Travelers and therefore may be held individually liable for the alleged\n\n scheme to defraud Travelers. Construing the facts in favor of Travelers, the Court cannot\n\n reasonably draw this inference. In part, Travelers\u2019 allegations demonstrate that the alleged\n\n scheme constituted a minority of EMSI\u2019s business. Travelers\u2019 allegations in the Amended\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 39 of 51 PageID #:\n 2940\n\n\n\n Complaint regarding violations occurring in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Georgia, do\n\n not allege that EMSI\u2019s business in these states consisted solely of the DME and replenishment\n\n supplies which were sold to patients that Travelers insured. Rather, Travelers only alleges that\n\n thirty-five percent of EMSI\u2019s business is derived from the New York market, (Am. Compl. \u00b6\n\n 100), which the Court previously concluded was insufficient to establish that all or the majority\n\n of EMSI\u2019s business is derived from the illegitimate or fraudulent activities involved in the\n\n scheme to defraud Travelers, and Travelers does not otherwise provide any information\n\n regarding what percentage of EMSI\u2019s business is derived from the markets in Pennsylvania,\n\n Florida, and Georgia. In view of Rule 9(b)\u2019s purposes \u201cto safeguard a defendant\u2019s reputation\n\n from improvident charges of wrongdoing,\u201d \u201cto protect a defendant against the institution of a\n\n strike suit,\u201d and \u201cdiscourage[] plaintiffs from using the litigation process to discover hypothetical\n\n wrongdoing,\u201d Miller, 110 F.4th at 544, the Court declines to infer solely on the basis of the\n\n Individual Defendants\u2019 management positions at EMSI that they participated in or directed the\n\n scheme to defraud Travelers. See Sanchez v. ASA Coll., Inc., No. 14-CV-5006, 2015 WL\n\n 3540836, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2015) (explaining that \u201ca plaintiff may not rely solely upon\n\n [the] defendants\u2019 \u2018positions of control\u2019 in an enterprise, and may not link individual defendants\n\n to fraudulent activities \u2018by stating only that [the d]efendants were officers and shareholders\u2019 of\n\n the organization\u2019\u201d to \u201cinform each defendant of the nature of his alleged participation in the\n\n fraud\u201d); see also City of Brockton Ret. Sys. v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 11-CV-4665, 2014 WL\n\n 4832321, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2014) (rejecting the plaintiffs argument that the individual\n\n defendants should have been aware of certain alleged \u201ccorrupt . . . events . . . because of their\n\n supervisory positions\u201d as \u201cgeneralized allegations founded solely on an individuals\u2019 corporate\n\n position are not sufficient to demonstrate scienter\u201d); cf. CPM Med Supply Inc., 2024 WL\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 40 of 51 PageID #:\n 2941\n\n\n\n 3949968, at *2 (finding that the plaintiff insurer sufficiently alleged the individual defendant\u2019s\n\n engagement in a RICO scheme to defraud the insurer into paying claims for fraudulently\n\n prescribed post-surgical rehabilitation durable medical equipment devices issued by the\n\n corporate defendant, a medical supplier, where the insurer alleged that the individual defendant\n\n was \u201cthe principal, officer, and/or director of [the durable medical equipment supplier],\n\n operating, managing and controlling its activities\u201d and that he formed the durable medical\n\n equipment supplier \u201cto engage in a scheme whereby [he] paid kickbacks to [the] [clinics] in\n\n exchange for prescriptions of [durable medical equipment]\u201d); Aghaeepour, 2015 WL 7758894, at\n\n *6 (concluding that while \u201cthe [c]omplaint contain[ed] a number of allegations against all [the\n\n d]efendants in general, the [c]omplaint\u2019s other allegations specific to each [d]efendant\u201d including\n\n their job titles and \u201chow their individual responsibilities demonstrate[d] their participation in the\n\n scheme\u201d were sufficient to accomplish the goals of Rule 9(b)).\n\n Because Travelers fails to plausibly allege (1) an \u201centerprise\u201d and (2) the Individual\n\n Defendants\u2019 participation in the alleged scheme to defraud it, the Court dismisses the substantive\n\n RICO claims predicated on the EMSI Enterprise and the Individual Defendants. 13\n\n ii. RICO conspiracy claim\n\n Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Travelers\u2019 RICO conspiracy claim because\n\n it arises from the same facts as Travelers\u2019 RICO claim. (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 29.)\n\n Travelers argues that it sufficiently alleges RICO conspiracy because the Amended\n\n Complaint \u201ccontains specific allegations of wrongdoing against each Individual\n\n Defendant/member of the executive team in conducting the affairs of the EMSI enterprise.\u201d (Pls.\u2019\n\n\n\n 13\n Having found that Travelers fails to establish the first and second prongs of a RICO\n claim, the Court does not address the parties\u2019 arguments regarding whether Travelers adequately\n pleaded the remaining two prongs.\n\n\n 40\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 41 of 51 PageID #:\n 2942\n\n\n\n Opp\u2019n 31.)\n\n As discussed supra Section II.c.i, Travelers has not adequately alleged a substantive\n\n RICO claim against Defendants. Travelers bases its conspiracy claims on the Individual\n\n Defendants\u2019 participation in the \u201coperation and management of the EMSI enterprise\u201d through \u201ca\n\n pattern of racketeering activity, including numerous acts of mail fraud . . . and/or submission of\n\n fraudulent insurance claim documents . . . to Travelers.\u201d (Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 44, 1092.) Thus,\n\n Travelers\u2019 \u201calleged conspirac[ies] involved an agreement to commit the same substantive RICO\n\n violations [the Court has] deemed insufficiently pled,\u201d Williams, 889 F.3d at 126, and it does not\n\n assert allegations or events separate from those underlying the substantive RICO claims for the\n\n RICO conspiracy claim.\n\n Accordingly, the Court dismisses the RICO conspiracy claims against Defendants. See,\n\n e.g., Curtis, 2023 WL 6324324, at *2 (dismissing the plaintiffs\u2019 conspiracy claim where they had\n\n not stated a substantive RICO claim); First Cap. Asset Mgmt., 385 F.3d at 182 (same); Chester\n\n Park View, LLC v. Schlesinger, No. 23-CV-5432, 2024 WL 2785140, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. May 29,\n\n 2024) (same); Anglin Auto. LLC v. EBF Holdings, LLC, No. 23-CV-1404, 2024 WL 1118892, at\n\n *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2024) (same); Verity Wines LLC, 2023 WL 374120, at *13 (same).\n\n d. Common law fraud claims\n\n Defendants first, argue that the Court should dismiss the common law fraud claims\n\n brought under New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Georgia law because Travelers fails to\n\n establish that the Individual Defendants committed fraud. 14 (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 29.) Second,\n\n\n\n 14\n The Court notes that the Amended Complaint alleges common-law fraud violations\n against all Defendants. (See Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 1097\u20131138.) Defendants move to dismiss the\n common-law fraud claims against the Individual Defendants, arguing that Travelers fails to\n establish that their actions constitute fraud. (Defs.\u2019 Mem. 29.) As to EMSI, Defendants move to\n dismiss the Pennsylvania, Florida, and Georgia common-law fraud claims against it arguing that\n\n\n 41\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 42 of 51 PageID #:\n 2943\n\n\n\n Defendants argue that the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Travelers\u2019 fraud\n\n claims arising under Florida, Pennsylvania, and Georgia law because Travelers fails to allege a\n\n common nucleus of operative fact. (Id. at 31\u201333; Defs.\u2019 Reply 14.) In support, Defendants\n\n contend that Travelers\u2019 argument that it has established jurisdiction because the Amended\n\n Complaint \u201carose as a result of a single nationwide scheme\u201d fails because Travelers does not\n\n dispute the existence of a \u201c\u2018national\u2019 billing regulatory system when it comes to worker\u2019s\n\n compensation and automobile medical insurance claims that have always been the province of\n\n state law.\u201d 15 (Defs.\u2019 Reply 14 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Pls.\u2019 Opp\u2019n 34).) Third, Defendants\n\n\n\n the Court lacks jurisdiction over them. (Id. at 31.) EMSI does not seek to dismiss the New York\n fraud claim.\n 15\n As discussed supra footnote 4, Travelers invokes both federal question and diversity\n jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint includes facts demonstrating diversity. First, Travelers\n satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement because it \u201cseeks actual damages in excess of\n $1,254,402.98,\u201d (Am. Compl. \u00b6 35). Second, Travelers satisfies the citizenship requirement\n because: (1) each of Travelers\u2019 companies is duly organized and exists under the laws of the\n State of Connecticut and has its principal place of business in Hartford Connecticut, except for\n Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., which is duly organized and exists under the\n laws of the State of Wisconsin, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 38\u201340); (2) EMSI is a registered Florida corporation with\n its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 41\u201342); and (3) all of the Individual\n Defendants reside in and are citizens of Florida, (id. \u00b6\u00b6 47, 60, 69, 80). See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332(a)\n (providing that original jurisdiction requires that \u201cthe matter in controversy\u201d (1) \u201cexceeds the\n sum or value of $75,000\u201d and (2) \u201cis between citizens of different [s]tates\u201d); Home Depot U. S.\n A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019) (quoting id.)); see Tagger v. Strauss Grp. Ltd., 951\n F.3d 124, 126 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (\u201cSection 1332 requires \u2018complete diversity,\u2019 meaning\n that \u2018all plaintiffs must be citizens of states diverse from those of all defendants.\u2019\u201d (quoting Pa.\n Pub. Sch. Emps.\u2019 Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 118 (2d Cir. 2014)));\n Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir.\n 2012) (\u201cFor diversity purposes, a corporation is considered a citizen of the state in which it is\n incorporated and the state of its principal place of business.\u201d); see also Metro Found.\n Contractors, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., 498 F. App\u2019x 98, 100 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding diversity\n jurisdiction where the parties \u201care citizens of different states and the amount in controversy\n exceeds $75,000\u201d).\n As discussed below, because Travelers invokes diversity jurisdiction, it does not need to\n allege that its claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. See Berk v. Choy, 607\n U.S. 187, 191\u201392 (2026) (\u201cState-law claims are usually brought in state court. But if the parties\n are citizens of different [s]tates and the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold, a\n\n\n 42\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 43 of 51 PageID #:\n 2944\n\n\n\n argue that the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction because \u201c[e]ach claim for\n\n reimbursement is regulated by the particular state law and dispute resolution mechanisms,\u201d and\n\n the Amended Complaint fails to allege which laws in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Georgia were\n\n violated by the Individual Defendants. (Id. at 15.)\n\n Travelers argues first, that it sufficiently pleads claims for common law fraud against the\n\n Individual Defendants pursuant to New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Georgia law because it\n\n establishes the Individual Defendants\u2019 participation in the fraudulent billing scheme. (Pls.\u2019\n\n Opp\u2019n 19\u201320.) Second, Travelers contends that the Court should not decline supplemental\n\n jurisdiction because \u201c[i]t is readily apparent that each alleged act of mail fraud within the\n\n [Amended Complaint] arose as a result of a single, nationwide scheme.\u201d (Id. at 34 (emphasis\n\n omitted).)\n\n \u201cUnder New York law, the elements of a fraud claim are \u2018a representation of material\n\n fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury.\u2019\u201d Pasternack v. Lab\u2019y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 807\n\n F.3d 14, 22 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 57 (1999));\n\n Meridian Horizon Fund, LP v. KPMG (Cayman), 487 F. App\u2019x 636, 641 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting\n\n\n\n plaintiff may choose to sue in federal court.\u201d); Emergency Physician Servs. of N.Y. v.\n UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., No. 20-CV-9183, 2021 WL 4437166, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)\n (concluding that the court \u201ccontinue[d] to have jurisdiction over [the] action\u201d following dismissal\n of the plaintiff\u2019s RICO claim because \u201cit appears the [c]ourt [ ] has diversity jurisdiction\u201d\n between the parties); Dos Santos v. Assurant, Inc., No. 21-CV-6368, 2021 WL 3667983, at *3\n (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2021) (\u201cUnless the [c]ourt has diversity jurisdiction of this matter, it will\n decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law claims . . . .\u201d); Success Sys.,\n Inc. v. Excentus Corp., 439 F. Supp. 3d 31, 51 (D. Conn. 2020) (stating that the court may have\n jurisdiction over state-law claims where the complaint suggests diversity of citizenship between\n the parties); see also Go N.Y. Tours, Inc. v. Tour Cent. Park Inc., No. 19-CV-9803, 2021 WL\n 3721359, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021) (\u201cAbsent diversity jurisdiction, the [c]ourt may\n exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if they are so related to claims in\n the action over which the [c]ourt has original jurisdiction \u2018that they form part of the same case or\n controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.\u2019\u201d (emphasis added) (quoting 28\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(a))).\n\n\n 43\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 44 of 51 PageID #:\n 2945\n\n\n\n N.Y. Univ. v. Cont\u2019l Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318 (1995)); Cargo Logs. Int., LLC v. Overseas\n\n Moving Specialists, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 3d 212, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2024) (\u201cUnder New York law, the\n\n essential elements of a fraud claim include \u2018representation of a material existing fact, falsity,\n\n scienter, deception, and injury.\u2019\u201d (quoting Manning v. Utils. Mut. Ins. Co., 254 F.3d 387, 400 (2d\n\n Cir. 2001))); see Kinsella v. S. Fork Wind, LLC, No. 25-355, 2026 WL 912590, at *3 (2d Cir.\n\n Mar. 30, 2026) (summary order) (\u201cUnder New York law, the elements of a fraud claim are a\n\n representation of material fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury.\u201d (quoting Pasternack, 807\n\n F.3d at 22)); Gerding v. Ljungren, No. 23-1119, 2025 WL 3751728, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 29,\n\n 2025) (summary order) (quoting same); Cortes v. 21st Century Fox Am., Inc., 751 F. App\u2019x 69,\n\n 72 (2d Cir. 2018) (stating the elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim). \u201cTo state a\n\n claim for fraud under New York law, a plaintiff must allege (1) a material misrepresentation or\n\n omission of fact; (2) which the defendant knew to be false; (3) which the defendant made with\n\n the intent to defraud; (4) upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied; and (5) which caused injury\n\n to the plaintiff.\u201d Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP, 83 F.4th 171, 190\u201391 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Fin.\n\n Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., 783 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2015)); Housey v. Proctor &\n\n Gamble Co., No. 22-888, 2022 WL 17844403, at *1 n.1 (2d Cir. Dec. 22, 2022) (summary order)\n\n (quoting same); Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 13 F.4th 247, 259 (2d\n\n Cir. 2021) (quoting Crigger v. Fahnestock & Co., 443 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also\n\n GEM Advisors, Inc. v. Corporaci\u00f3n Sidenor, S.A., 667 F. Supp. 2d 308, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)\n\n (\u201cThe second element of fraud in New York is intent to defraud, or scienter, which includes\n\n knowledge of the falsity of the representation.\u201d (citing Banque Arabe et Internationale\n\n D\u2019Investissement v. Md. Nat\u2019l Bank, 57 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir. 1995))).\n\n \u201cUnder Florida law, a common law fraud or misrepresentation claim requires: (1) a false\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 45 of 51 PageID #:\n 2946\n\n\n\n statement of fact, (2) known by the defendant to be false at the time it was made, and (3) made\n\n for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act in reliance thereon; (4) action by the plaintiff in\n\n reliance on the correctness of the representations; and (5) resulting damages to the plaintiff.\u201d\n\n Wynfield Inns v. Edward LeRoux Grp., Inc., 896 F.2d 483, 490 (11th Cir. 1990); see Malhotra v.\n\n Kumar, No. 25-13898, 2026 WL 2474635, at *3 n.3 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026) (per curiam)\n\n (quoting Gandy v. Trans World Computer Tech. Grp., 787 So. 2d 116, 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.\n\n 2001)); Gov\u2019t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Quality Diagnostic Health Care, Inc., No. 21-10297, 2021 WL\n\n 5157535, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2021) (per curiam) (quoting same); Gustin v. Bank, 859 F.\n\n App\u2019x 889, 891 (11th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting same); Gallagher v. Lactalis Am. Grp.,\n\n Inc., No. 22-CV-614, 2023 WL 6224881, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2023) (quoting Gustin, 859\n\n F. App\u2019x at 891); In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative, & Emp. Ret. Income Sec. Act\n\n (ERISA) Litig., No. 09-MD-2058, 2013 WL 6504801, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013) (quoting\n\n Rhodes v. O. Turner & Co., 117 So. 3d 872, 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)).\n\n \u201cTo state a fraud claim under Pennsylvania law, [p]laintiffs must allege: \u2018(1) a\n\n representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge\n\n of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of misleading\n\n another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting\n\n injury was proximately caused by the reliance.\u2019\u201d Crawford\u2019s Auto Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut.\n\n Auto. Ins. Co., 945 F.3d 1150, 1161 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882, 889\n\n (Pa. 1994)); Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Pittsburgh & W. Virginia R.R., 870 F.3d 244, 255 (3d Cir.\n\n 2017) (quoting same); Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 709 F.3d 240, 256\u201357 (3d Cir.\n\n 2013) (quoting EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., 618 F.3d 253, 275 (3d Cir. 2010)); Wall v. CSX\n\n Transp., Inc., 471 F.3d 410, 417\u201318 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Gibbs, 647 A.2d at 889); Ramirez v.\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 46 of 51 PageID #:\n 2947\n\n\n\n IDD Cars, LLC, 815 F. Supp. 3d 286, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (quoting Corle Bldg. Sys., Inc. v.\n\n Ogden Welding Sys., Inc., 684 F. Supp. 3d 390, 405 (W.D. Pa. 2023)).\n\n \u201cUnder Georgia law, a fraud claim comprises the following elements: (1) that the\n\n defendant made the misrepresentation; (2) that he knew was false; (3) that he acted with the\n\n intent to deceive the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation; and\n\n (5) that the plaintiff sustained damages as the proximate result of the misrepresentations.\u201d Deal\n\n v. Tugalo Gas Co., 991 F.3d 1313, 1324 n.5 (11th Cir. 2021); see Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v.\n\n Mid-S. Cap., Inc., 690 F.3d 1216, 1234 (11th Cir. 2012) (\u201cA claim for fraud requires proof of \u20181)\n\n a false representation or omission of material fact; 2) scienter; 3) intent to induce the party\n\n claiming fraud to act or refrain from acting; 4) justifiable reliance; and 5) damages.\u2019\u201d (quoting\n\n Collins v. Regions Bank, 639 S.E.2d 626, 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006))); Wade Park Land Holdings,\n\n LLC v. Kalikow, 589 F. Supp. 3d 335, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (quoting Tischer v. Bank of Am.\n\n Corp., No. 12-CV-4185, 2014 WL 11822767, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2014)), amended, No. 21-\n\n CV-1657, 2022 WL 2479110 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2022), and aff\u2019d sub nom. In re Wade Park Land\n\n Holdings, LLC, No. 23-591, 2024 WL 3024648 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024) (summary order).\n\n \u201c[I]n conjunction with the facial plausibility standard of Rule 12(b)(6),\u201d pleadings for\n\n common law fraud claims \u201cmust satisfy the heightened pleading standard set forth in Rule 9(b)\u201d\n\n of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo\n\n Secs., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 171 (2d Cir. 2015); see VR Glob. Partners, L.P. v. Petr\u00f3leos de\n\n Venezuela, S.A., No. 24-1176, 2024 WL 4891271, at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (summary\n\n order); Smith v. D\u2019Agostino, No. 25-CV-1265, 2025 WL 3525935, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 9,\n\n 2025) (\u201cA claim for common law fraud under New York law must satisfy the requirements of the\n\n heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d),\n\n\n\n\n 46\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 47 of 51 PageID #:\n 2948\n\n\n\n reconsideration denied, 2026 WL 295525 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2026); Turk v. Rubbermaid Inc.,\n\n No. 21-CV-270, 2022 WL 836894, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022) (\u201c[F]raud claims \u2014\n\n including common law fraud claims \u2014 are subject to the heightened pleading standard set forth\n\n in Rule 9(b).\u201d). \u201cRule 9(b) requires that \u2018[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with\n\n particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.\u2019\u201d United States ex rel. Ladas v.\n\n Exelis, Inc., 824 F.3d 16, 25 (2d Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)).\n\n The particularity pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) \u201crequire[ ] that the plaintiff (1)\n\n detail the statements (or omissions) that the plaintiff contends are fraudulent, (2) identify the\n\n speaker, (3) state where and when the statements (or omissions) were made, and (4) explain why\n\n the statements (or omissions) are fraudulent.\u201d Fin. Guar. Ins., 783 F.3d at 402\u201303 (quoting\n\n Eternity Glob. Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 187 (2d Cir.\n\n 2004)); Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir. 2007); Rowe Plastic Surgery of\n\n N.J., L.L.C. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 23-CV-2599, 2026 WL 783837, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3,\n\n 2026) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337, 347 (2d Cir. 1996)), report and\n\n recommendation adopted, Order Adopting Report and Recommendations (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18,\n\n 2026). \u201cIn short, a plaintiff must set forth the who, what, when, where and how of the alleged\n\n fraud.\u201d In re Hut 8 Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 24-CV-904, 2025 WL 2636150, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sep.\n\n 12, 2025) (quoting Telenor E. Inv. AS v. Altimo Holdings & Invs. Ltd., 567 F. Supp. 2d 432, 441\u2013\n\n 42 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)); U.S. ex rel. Henig v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-CV-5673, 2025 WL 27736,\n\n at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2025) (\u201cPut another way, Rule 9(b) \u2018requires that a plaintiff set forth the\n\n who, what, when, where[,] and how of the alleged fraud.\u2019\u201d (quoting U.S. ex rel. Kester Novartis\n\n Pharm. Corp., 23 F. Supp. 3d 242, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2014))), aff\u2019d, 177 F.4th 156 (2d Cir. 2026);\n\n Kearney v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, No. 17-CV-13544, 2018 WL\n\n\n\n\n 47\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 48 of 51 PageID #:\n 2949\n\n\n\n 4144683, at *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2018) (quoting Institutional Invs. Grp. v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d\n\n 242, 253 (3d Cir. 2009)). \u201cAlthough Rule 9(b) allows for \u2018[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other\n\n conditions of a person\u2019s mind [to] be alleged generally,\u2019 a plaintiff must still allege facts \u2018that\n\n give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent.\u2019\u201d Red Apple 86 Fleet Place Dev., LLC v.\n\n State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 23-1312, 2024 WL 4764060, at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 2024)\n\n (summary order) (alterations in original) (first quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); and then quoting\n\n Loreley, 797 F.3d at 171). \u201c[A] \u2018strong inference of fraudulent intent\u2019 [ ] \u2018may be established\n\n either (a) by alleging facts to show that defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit\n\n fraud, or (b) by alleging facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious\n\n misbehavior or recklessness.\u2019\u201d Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., No. 23-209,\n\n 2023 WL 7130553, at *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2023) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Strock,\n\n 982 F.3d 51, 66 (2d Cir. 2020)); see also Honeyman v. Hoyt (In re Carter-Wallace, Inc., Sec.\n\n Litig.), 220 F.3d 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, 25 F.3d 1124, 1128\n\n (2d Cir. 1994)) (same).\n\n i. Common law fraud claims against the Individual Defendants\n\n Travelers bases its common law fraud claims against the Individual Defendants on the\n\n same fraudulent billing scheme that formed the basis of its RICO claims. As discussed supra\n\n Section II.c.i.2, Travelers sufficiently alleges with particularity: (1) the specific statements it\n\n contends are fraudulent, which are the misrepresentations and omissions regarding EMSI\u2019s\n\n eligibility for and entitlement to reimbursement of benefits; (2) who made them \u2014 EMSI; (3)\n\n where and when the statements were made \u2014 (i) from 2014 to the present and (ii) in claims and\n\n supporting documentation made to Travelers; and (4) how and why the statements are fraudulent,\n\n which is because the reimbursement claims \u2014 the fact that the TENS/NMES Devices and\n\n supplies that were unlawful, unnecessary, medically worthless, billed pursuant to a\n\n\n 48\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 49 of 51 PageID #:\n 2950\n\n\n\n predetermined treatment protocol, and fraudulently billed. (See generally Am. Compl.)\n\n However, the allegations fail to establish that the Individual Defendants participated in the\n\n scheme and are insufficient to state a fraud claim, as Travelers\u2019 allegations amount to a recitation\n\n of the Individual Defendants\u2019 positions and general responsibilities at EMSI. Likewise,\n\n Travelers\u2019 allegations regarding the Individual Defendants\u2019 involvement in the \u201cexecutive team\u201d\n\n fail to establish their participation in the alleged scheme because Travelers does not specify the\n\n Individual Defendants\u2019 responsibilities in creating and enforcing the LOMN and its policies. See\n\n Bigsby v. Barclays Cap. Real Est., Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 708, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (dismissing\n\n common law fraud claims for the same reasons that it dismissed the federal RICO claims), aff\u2019d,\n\n 841 F. App\u2019x 331 (2d Cir. 2021); Lima LS PLC v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12-CV-1122,\n\n 2013 WL 3327038, at *11, 14 (D. Conn. July 1, 2013) (dismissing common law fraud claim\n\n against the individual defendants because \u201c[c]onsistent with the discussion relevant to the RICO\n\n claim, [the p]laintiff ha[d] not pleaded fraud with particularity with regard to the conduct by the\n\n [i]ndividual [d]efendants\u201d as the \u201ccomplaint lack[ed] specific allegations as to actual acts\n\n specific to each of the [i]ndividual [d]efendants\u201d and appeared to \u201crely upon the corporate\n\n positions of the [i]ndividual [d]efendants\u201d); 3801 Beach Channel, Inc. v. Shvartzman, No. 05-\n\n CV-207, 2007 WL 2891119, at *7 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2007) (\u201cPresumably, if the RICO\n\n claim \u2014 which is predicated on allegations that the defendants engaged in a wide array of crimes\n\n beyond mere fraud \u2014 is fatally defective by reason of its failure to make sufficiently detailed\n\n averments of fraud, then the more limited state law claim which relies exclusively on such\n\n averments must likewise be defective.\u201d).\n\n Accordingly, the Court dismisses Travelers\u2019 common law fraud claim against the\n\n Individual Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n 49\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 50 of 51 PageID #:\n 2951\n\n\n\n ii. Common law fraud claims against EMSI\n\n Travelers asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to both federal question and\n\n diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and 1332, respectively, (Am. Compl. \u00b6 91), and\n\n Defendants do not challenge Travelers\u2019 diversity jurisdiction assertion. Despite the Court\u2019s\n\n subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity, which Defendants do not challenge, Defendants\n\n argue that the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law fraud claims but\n\n does not explain the basis for doing so. The Court sits in diversity jurisdiction, and Defendants\n\n do not present any caselaw stating that a federal court sitting in diversity may somehow dismiss\n\n state-law claims pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction. Rather, the Court can decline exercising\n\n supplemental jurisdiction only when dismissal of a federal claim deprives it of jurisdiction,\n\n which is not the case here. See Moody v. Northwell Health, Inc., No. 26-CV-283, 2026 WL\n\n 2268096, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2026) (\u201cA federal district court also can consider state-law\n\n claims under its diversity jurisdiction.\u201d), appeal filed, No. 26-2251 (2d Cir. Aug. 12, 2026);\n\n Crumbsie v. Muhammad, No. 26-CV-3352, 2026 WL 1622941, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2026)\n\n (\u201cTo bring a state law claim in federal court, a plaintiff must either allege facts demonstrating\n\n that the court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction of the action, or, if the plaintiff asserts a\n\n viable federal claim, the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims.\u201d);\n\n Reeves v. United States, No. 26-CV-930, 2026 WL 1192723, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2026) (\u201cA\n\n federal district court can consider state law claims either under its diversity of citizenship\n\n jurisdiction or its supplemental jurisdiction.\u201d); see also Parkes v. Bluemenfeld Dev. Grp., Ltd.,\n\n No. 25-CV-74, 2025 WL 674149, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025) (\u201c[W]hen a court determines\n\n that there is no original federal subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, as the [c]ourt has done\n\n here, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.\u201d), appeal dismissed, No.\n\n 25-704 (2d. Cir. Dec. 15, 2025); Marchant v. de Blasio, No. 20-CV-10544, 2021 WL 4199940,\n\n\n 50\n\fCase 1:24-cv-08138-MKB-MMH Document 60 Filed 09/24/26 Page 51 of 51 PageID #:\n 2952\n\n\n\n at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2021) (\u201cHaving dismissed the federal claims and given the absence of\n\n diversity jurisdiction, the [c]ourt declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law\n\n claims.\u201d).\n\n Defendants do not argue any other basis for the Court to dismiss the state-law claims\n\n against EMSI, and the Court, therefore, declines to dismiss these claims against EMSI.\n\n III. Conclusion\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants\u2019 motion\n\n to dismiss. The Court (1) grants Defendants\u2019 motion and (i) dismisses the RICO claims against\n\n the Individual Defendants and (ii) dismisses the state-law fraud claims against the Individual\n\n Defendants and (2) denies Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the state-law fraud claims against\n\n EMSI. The parties should proceed with discovery before the assigned Magistrate Judge on the\n\n remaining state law claims against EMSI.\n\n Dated: September 24, 2026\n Brooklyn, New York\n SO ORDERED:\n\n\n\n /s/ MKB\n MARGO K. BRODIE\n United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n 51\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-25T08:14:39.148072-07:00","document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"123024220492","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-24T10:30:42.001982-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-01T14:13:13.319363-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-24","time_filed":"13:22:16","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":413,"description":" MEMORANDUM & ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court (1) grants Defendants' motion and (i) dismisses the RICO claims against the Individual Defendants and (ii) dismisses the state-law fraud claims against t he Individual Defendants and (2) denies Defendants' motion to dismiss the state-law fraud claims against EMSI. The parties should proceed with discovery before the assigned Magistrate Judge on the remaining state law claims against EMSI. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/24/2026. (MO)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479280166/","id":479280166,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494925143/","id":494925143,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/59/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-24T10:20:17.296152-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T10:20:17.306996-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Report","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-24T10:20:17.266240-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T10:20:17.273776-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-24","time_filed":"13:10:40","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474336522/","id":474336522,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489835147/","id":489835147,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-13T10:14:31.142810-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T10:14:31.142823-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-13T10:14:31.131380-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T10:14:31.131395-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-13","time_filed":"13:08:38","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473833759/","id":473833759,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489313256/","id":489313256,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/58/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-10T07:54:08.170279-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T07:54:08.179409-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T07:54:08.143975-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T07:54:08.152601-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"10:47:20","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472419795/","id":472419795,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487852760/","id":487852760,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-28T13:05:23.846511-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-28T13:05:23.846530-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Conference AND ~Util - Set Deadlines","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-28T13:05:23.834490-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-28T13:05:23.834510-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-28","time_filed":"15:53:54","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472419634/","id":472419634,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487852599/","id":487852599,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-28T13:05:17.633924-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-28T13:05:17.633937-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-28T13:05:17.622306-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-28T13:05:17.622321-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-28","time_filed":"15:57:09","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468798404/","id":468798404,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484108194/","id":484108194,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-06-25T13:54:38.097485-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:54:38.114916-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-25T13:54:38.082273-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:54:38.082286-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-25","time_filed":"16:49:26","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465510621/","id":465510621,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480716445/","id":480716445,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/57/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-28T12:33:16.802784-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-28T12:33:16.808197-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-28T12:33:16.782412-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-28T12:33:16.787058-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-28","time_filed":"15:22:45","entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464382556/","id":464382556,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479554296/","id":479554296,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/56/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T08:53:16.032163-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T08:53:16.047268-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time to Complete Discovery","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-18T08:53:15.995172-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T08:53:16.015249-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-18","time_filed":"11:41:16","entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463324265/","id":463324265,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478466236/","id":478466236,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69406481/55/travelers-personal-insurance-company-v-electrostim-medical-services-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-07T13:03:22.937241-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-07T13:03:22.942441-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-07T13:03:22.904599-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-07T13:03:22.909703-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-07","time_filed":"15:55:33","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459455457/","id":459455457,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474483402/","id":474483402,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-02T06:32:12.487007-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-02T06:32:12.492817-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement Conference AND ~Util - Set Deadlines","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-02T06:32:12.474413-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-02T06:32:12.474425-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-02","time_filed":"09:26:39","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459148059/","id":459148059,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69406481/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474167222/","id":474167222,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-31T09:23:31.053465-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-31T09:23:31.060598-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order(Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T09:23:31.037312-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-31T09:23:31.037331-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-31","time_filed":"12:18:55","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69406481&page_size=40"}