Post number 5326
See the video at https://rumble.com/v78l8tq-abuse-of-process-and-use-of-ai-upsets-usdc-for-washington-dc.html and at https://youtu.be/_POUCvB9WYc
International Litigation Unfounded
In Zavadovsky v. Republic of Austria, et al., Civil Action No. 25‑1008 (RC)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Judge Rudolph Contreras
Decided March 31, 2026 concerning allegations that in 2021, Austrian authorities investigated Plaintiffs based on testimony concerning Plaintiffs’ alleged tax and insurance fraud. searched their Austrian property, and seized assets.
Plaintiffs claimed the investigation was false and abusive. After unsuccessfully litigating related claims in multiple state and federal courts, Plaintiffs filed the present action alleging a sweeping transnational conspiracy among Austrian officials, U.S. government employees, and private attorneys.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for conversion, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and civil RICO/RICO conspiracy, and sought over $10 million in damages, return of seized property, and broad injunctive relief. Numerous motions to dismiss, motions to strike, sanctions motions, and default motions were pending.
The Parties
Plaintiffs: Boris Zavadovsky and Elena Dvoinik, pro se U.S. citizens residing in Florida.
Defendants:
Austrian Defendants – Republic of Austria, Austrian ministries, and the Austrian Embassy.
Attorney Defendants – U.S. attorneys Elke Rolff and Dale Webner (former counsel to Austrian parties).
Federal Defendants – DOJ attorneys, a DOJ employee, and a Secret Service official.
Issues
Whether Plaintiffs’ claims against Attorney Defendants are barred by res judicata or fail to state a claim.
Whether the Court has subject‑matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or standing over claims against Federal Defendants.
Whether Plaintiffs properly effected service of process on Austrian Defendants under the FSIA.
Whether defaults entered against Austrian Defendants should be set aside.
Holding
All claims against Attorney Defendants and Federal Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.
Service on Austrian Defendants was quashed and entries of default were vacated; Plaintiffs were granted limited leave to re‑serve Austria through diplomatic channels.
Nearly all Plaintiffs’ pending motions were denied.
Reasoning
Attorney Defendants: Plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same nucleus of facts as prior Florida state and federal cases that were dismissed on the merits; thus, res judicata barred relitigation. Independently, Plaintiffs failed to plead plausible claims for conversion, defamation (barred by judicial proceedings privilege and time‑barred), IIED (no extreme and outrageous conduct), or RICO (conclusory conspiracy theories based on litigation conduct).
Federal Defendants: The United States properly substituted itself under the Westfall Act. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA, depriving the Court of jurisdiction over the conversion claim. Plaintiffs’ RICO claims were deemed patently insubstantial and “essentially fictitious,” defeating subject‑matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also lacked standing, failed to establish personal jurisdiction over one defendant, and did not rebut Westfall certification.
Austrian Defendants: Plaintiffs attempted service by mail under FSIA §1608(a)(3), but Austria has objected to mail service under the Hague Service Convention. Strict compliance with FSIA was required; proper service must proceed through diplomatic channels under §1608(a)(4). Because service was defective, defaults could not stand and were set aside for good cause.
DISPOSITION
Motions to dismiss by Attorney and Federal Defendants GRANTED.
Austrian Defendants’ motion to quash service and set aside defaults GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ remaining motions DENIED.
Plaintiffs may re‑serve Austrian Defendants via diplomatic channels by June 30, 2026.
NOTES
The Court admonished Plaintiffs for citing nonexistent cases and misleading authorities, warned of potential Rule 11 sanctions, and cautioned against repetitive or frivolous litigation, including possible pre‑filing restrictions.
ZALMA OPINION
The Plaintiffs, upset that the Republic of Austria investigated the plaintiffs for criminal conduct including insurance fraud they sued the Republic seeking various kinds of damages including RICO damages in the USDC for Washington DC only to have their case dismissed because it was decided previously in a different jurisdiction, failed to properly serve the Republic and used Artificial Intelligence which created false and imaginary authorities. Although no one likes to be accused of fraud if they think the charges are false they need to file a clear and unambiguous law suit understandable by the court and properly serve the defendants. The plaintiff failed on all of those issues and found their case dismissed. The Court gave the plaintiffs the right to properly serve the Austrian defendant.
(c) 2026 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.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
