Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Searchable USDC Az RICO Case Statement

Searchable USDC Az RICO Case Statement

Ratings: (0)|Views: 145 |Likes:
The U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas (Davidson v. Grossman, Case No. 4:07-cv-00471) granted Davidsons' motion to judicially-notice a certified, file-stamped true and correct copy of the original RICO Case Statement filed by Davidsons in the U.S. District Court Arizona District (Davidson v. Vivra Inc, Case No. CV-03-0110-TUC FRZ) obtained from the U.S. District Clerk. See Document 49 for the Order on May 18, 2007, granting Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Judicial Notice (Document 48) in USDC SDTX Case No. 4:07-cv-00471.
The U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas (Davidson v. Grossman, Case No. 4:07-cv-00471) granted Davidsons' motion to judicially-notice a certified, file-stamped true and correct copy of the original RICO Case Statement filed by Davidsons in the U.S. District Court Arizona District (Davidson v. Vivra Inc, Case No. CV-03-0110-TUC FRZ) obtained from the U.S. District Clerk. See Document 49 for the Order on May 18, 2007, granting Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Judicial Notice (Document 48) in USDC SDTX Case No. 4:07-cv-00471.

More info:

Published by: Robert Davidson, M.D., Ph.D. on Jul 19, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Robert Davidson, et al v Vivra Inc, et al- 1 - RICO CASE STATEMENT
RICO CASE STATEMENTKEY TO NAMED PARTIES TO THIS ACTION: [keyed identically to Plaintiff’sOriginal Complaint]Robert Davidson, M.D. [plaintiff A]Vanessa Komar, R.N. [plaintiff B]Joanne C. Wray, R.N. [involuntary co-plaintiff C]Vivra Inc [defendant D]Vivra Asthma Allergy Inc [defendant E]Vivra Asthma & Allergy Care America of Arizona, P.C. [defendant F]Vivra Holdings Inc [defendant G]Magellan Specialty Health Inc [defendant H]Texas Pacific Group Inc [defendant I]IHealth Technologies Inc [defendant J]Gambro Healthcare Inc [defendant K]Dialysis Holdings Inc [defendant L]Allied Specialty Care Services Inc [defendant M]Albany Medical College [defendant N]Jay Grossman, M.D. [defendant O]Eudice Grossman [defendant P]Thomas B. Edwards, M.D. [defendant Q]Gayle F. Petrillo [defendant R]Charles W. Ott [defendant S]Timothy G. Wighton [defendant T]John W. Strack [defendant U]Lynda L. Nessinger [defendant V]Richard Hassett, M.D. [defendant W]James L. Sublett, M.D. [defendant X]Leanne M. Zumwalt [defendant Y]An undetermined number of presently unknown defendants [defendants Z]
Per an order of the Court, under local rule 1.2 (i), and the provisions of Rule 37, Fed. R.Civ. P.:1. State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 USC Section(a), (b), (c), and/or (d).
Response:
It is alleged that the defendants (Vivra Inc; Vivra Asthma AllergyInc; Vivra Asthma Allergy Care America of Arizona, PC; Vivra Holdings Inc;Magellan Specialty Health Inc; Texas Pacific Group Inc; iHealth
 
Robert Davidson, et al v Vivra Inc, et al- 2 - RICO CASE STATEMENTTechnologies Inc; Gambro Healthcare Inc; Dialysis Holdings Inc; AlliedSpecialty Care Services Inc; Albany Medical College; Jay Grossman; EudiceGrossman; Thomas B. Edwards; Gayle F. Petrillo; Charles W. Ott; TimothyG. Wighton; John W. Strack; Lynda L. Nessinger; Richard Hassett; James L.Sublett; Leanne M. Zumwalt; and an undetermined number of presentlyunnamed defendants) have violated, or conspired to violate, 18 USC Section1962 (b), (c), and (d).2. List each defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability of each defendant.
Response:
Vivra Inc agreed, with conspirators or anyone else, to conduct or participate inthe violation of the substantive RICO statute, specifically 18 USC Section1962 (b), 18 USC Section 1962 (c), and 18 USC Section 1962 (d). Vivra Incagreed, with conspirators or anyone else, to conduct or participate in theaffairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity as proscribed by 18 USC Section 1962 (c). Vivra Inc agreed to the commission of at leasttwo predicate acts on behalf of the conspiracy. Vivra Inc also agreed to thecommission of predicate acts of racketeering activity that in themselves areconspiracies. Vivra Inc conspired to conspire in an overall conspiracy toviolate 18 USC Section (b), (c), and (d). Vivra Inc employed a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire or maintain an interest in an interstateenterprise. Vivra Inc conducted or participated in the conduct of anenterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Through the
 
Robert Davidson, et al v Vivra Inc, et al- 3 - RICO CASE STATEMENTcommission of two or more of the enumerated predicate acts which constitutea pattern of racketeering activity, Vivra Inc directly or indirectly participatedin the conduct of an enterprise the activities of which affect interstatecommerce. The plaintiffs were injured in their business or property by reasonof such conduct by Vivra Inc which was violative of the substantive RICOstatute. Plaintiffs allege the existence of an enterprise, that the enterpriseaffected interstate commerce, that Vivra Inc was associated with theenterprise, that Vivra Inc participated, either directly or indirectly, in theconduct of the affairs of the enterprise, and that Vivra Inc participated througha pattern of racketeering activity, through the commission of at least two predicate acts. Vivra Inc participated in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Vivra Inc agreed to violate, and in concert with theconspirators violated, the substantive RICO statute 18 USC Sections 1962 (b),(c), and (d). Plaintiffs allege a causal connection between the injury and the prohibited activity. Plaintiffs allege racketeering enterprise injury, substantiveRICO conspiracy injury [18 USC Section 1962 (d)], substantive RICO injury[18 USC Section 1962 (b) and (c)], and predicate act injury, to their businessor property by reason of the prohibited conduct by Vivra Inc. Plaintiffs allegethat these injuries are on-going [even though stated in past tense], continuinginjuries to their business or property.Defendant E [Vivra Asthma Allergy Inc] agreed, with conspirators or anyoneelse, to conduct or participate in the violation of the substantive RICO statute,

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->