Private Citizen May Not Compel Enforcement of a Criminal Law
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZPHe22r, se the full video at https://lnkd.in/gCVTa9T2 and at https://lnkd.in/gF-jue4C and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 4750 posts.
Post 4774
Ronald Rothman appealed from an order of the District Court dismissing his complaint with prejudice and remanding a foreclosure proceeding to state court.
In Ronald S. Rothman v. CABANA SERIES IV TRUST; IGLOO SERIES IV TRUST; U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; BALBEC CAPITAL, L.P.; SN SERVICING CORPORATION; FRIEDMAN VARTOLO, LLP; QUENTEN GILLIAM, ESQ., No. 23-2455, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (April 2, 2024) the USCA, 3rd Circuit resolved the dispute.
FACTS
In June 2023, Rothman sued the defendants alleging that defendants violated federal civil and criminal laws in connection with an “invalid mortgage loan.” Rothman claimed that the loan was obtained by his son in 2006 to finance the purchase of a property from Rothman, that the “Notice of Settlement” for the loan was improperly recorded, and that the defendants illegally collected (or benefitted from) insurance payments on the “invalid” loan. The action was based on the False Claims Act and numerous criminal statutes, including the RICO Act. Rothman sought “declaratory judgments,” nullifying the mortgage loan and the sale of the property, and requiring restitution of the insurance payments.
In July 2023, Rothman filed a letter with the District Court, seeking to remove a 2022 foreclosure action (which stemmed from an alleged default of the mortgage loan) from the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, to the District Court. In a Memorandum Order entered July 31, 2023, the District Court granted Rothman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and screened and dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
JURISDICTION
Appellees contend the Third Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the order remanding the foreclosure matter. The complaint was not a notice of removal but rather an original action, and the District Court appropriately treated it as such.
In its Memorandum Order, the District Court considered the claims and dismissed them. That determination was final. It is reviewable by the Third Circuit. A district court cannot prevent appellate review of a final order by contemporaneously remanding a case to state court.
THE COMPLAINT
The complaint sought to hold defendants civilly and criminally liable for insurance fraud. Rothman claimed that the suit was “in the [p]ublic [i]nterest” because the defendants were depriving the “American [p]ublic and [c]itizens” of the federal funds.
The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Rothman, in essence, asserted a False Claims “qui tam” suit. In such cases, the Government is the real party in interest. Although a private person (the relator) may bring the suit on behalf of the Government circuit courts agree that a pro se litigant, like Rothman, may not. Nor could Rothman, as a private citizen, compel enforcement of criminal law. The District Court properly dismissed the complaint.
ZALMA OPINION
Qui tam suits are a powerful tool against insurance fraud. However, as the Third Circuit made clear, a private citizen acting in pro se may not nor may a private citizen compel enforcement of criminal law. The case established the old saying that “he who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g, Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
ZIFL Volume 30, Number 2
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5260
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzCr4jkF, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g432fs3q and at https://lnkd.in/gcNuT84h, https://zalma.com/blog, and at https://lnkd.in/gKVa6r9B.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ZIFL-01-15-2026.pdf.
The Contents of the January 15, 2026 Issue of ZIFL Includes:
Use of the Examination Under Oath to Defeat Fraud
The insurance Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) is a condition precedent to indemnity under a first party property insurance policy that allows an insurer ...
ERISA Life Policy Requires Active Employment to Order Increase in Benefits
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXJqus8t, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7qT3y_y and at https://lnkd.in/gUduPkn4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Katherine Crow Albert Guidry, Individually And On Behalf Of The Estate Of Jason Paul Guidry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al, Civil Action No. 25-18-SDD-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (January 7, 2026) Guidry brought suit to recover life insurance proceeds she alleges were wrongfully withheld following her husband’s death on January 9, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jason Guidry was employed by Waste Management, which provided life insurance coverage through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). Plaintiff contends that after Jason’s death, the defendants (MetLife, Waste Management, and Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”)) engaged in conduct intended to confuse and ultimately deny her entitlement to...
Failure to Respond to Motion to Dismiss is Agreement to the Motion
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gP52fU5s, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gR8HMUpp and at https://lnkd.in/gh7dNA99, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Mercury Casualty Company v. Haiyan Xu, et al., No. 2:23-CV-2082 JCM (EJY), United States District Court, D. Nevada (January 6, 2026) Plaintiff Mercury Casualty Company (“plaintiff”) moved to dismiss. Defendant Haiyan Xu and Victoria Harbor Investments, LLC (collectively, “defendants”) did not respond.
This case revolves around an insurance coverage dispute when the parties could not be privately resolved, litigation was initiated in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Plaintiff subsequently filed for a declaratory judgment in this court.
On or about April 15, 2025, the state court action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation following mediation. Plaintiff states that the state court dismissal renders its ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
