A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Protection Act (NJIFPA) claim lacked particularity, was time-barred, and could not apply because New York law governed the alleged conduct.
The proposed amended complaint alleges five causes of action: common law fraud against the Feldheims (Count I); breach of contract against the Feldheims (Count II); common law fraud against Caring Connections (Count III); aiding and abetting fraud against Caring Connections (Count IV); and violation of the NJIFPA against all defendants. It adds factual allegations intended to cure the earlier pleading deficiencies.
LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) directs courts to grant leave to amend freely when justice so requires.
Futility generally uses the Rule 12(b)(6) legal-sufficiency standard: whether the proposed complaint states a facially plausible claim, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail. The opinion emphasizes that amendment proceedings need not become full merits motion practice. An amendment that is not clearly futile and is sufficiently grounded in fact or law to be nonfrivolous should be allowed. The economic loss doctrine, limitations, and choice of law were raised as potential barriers, but their application was not finally resolved.
DISCUSSION
The Feldheims argued that the common law fraud claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine, duplicated the surviving contract claim, and lacked the particularity required by Rule 9(b). They also argued that the NJIFPA claim lacked particularity, was time-barred, and could not apply because New York law governed the alleged conduct.
The Court found the added fraud allegations sufficiently detailed to warrant amendment. The economic loss doctrine and NJIFPA issues required nuanced analysis better suited to a motion to dismiss.
ANALYSIS
The ruling distinguishes permission to plead claims from a final determination that those claims withstand dismissal. The Court concluded that the proposed amendment was a nonfrivolous pursuit under Rule 15, while expressly declining a full analysis under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Thus, the order does not establish fraud liability, definitively resolve pleading sufficiency, determine the governing state law, or decide the NJIFPA limitations defense.
The procedural significance is that John Hancock may pursue its revised allegations alongside the surviving contract claim. The Court preserved a later opportunity for substantive review rather than deciding the overlapping dismissal issues during the amendment proceeding.
CONCLUSION
The Court granted John Hancock leave to file the proposed amended complaint on or before November 10, 2026. Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond in the normal course. The parties must meet and confer regarding discovery.
As a result of the opinion and order, only John Hancock’s breach of contract claim against the Feldheims survived. John Hancock timely filed its motion to amend. The proposed amended complaint asserts five causes of action: common law fraud against the Feldheims breach of contract against the Feldheims (the claim that survived defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint); common law fraud against Caring Connection; aiding and abetting fraud against Caring Connections; and violation of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (“NJIFPA”), against all defendants. The proposed amended complaint also includes new factual allegations that seek to remedy the pleading deficiencies that the Court identified in its March 26 opinion and order.
For the foregoing reasons, John Hancock’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint was GRANTED.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance companies are now required by statute to maintain Specialized Investigative Units (SIUs) to assist the state in defeating insurance fraud. John Hancock sued those it believed had attempted to defraud it, lost a motion to dismiss, and was granted the right to file an amended c0mplaint and alleged enough facts to be granted the right to amend the complaint.
(c) 2026, Barry Zalma
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://barryzalma.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 Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
