EFTA Document EFTA01407289

NAME SEARCHED: Harry Beller PWM BIS-RESEARCH performed due diligence research in accordance with the standards set by AML Compliance for your business We completed thorough searches on your subject name(s) in the required databases and have attached the search results under the correct heading below. Significant negative media results may require escalation to senior business, Legal and Compliance management. Also, all accounts involving PEPs must be escalated. Search: Result: RDC PCR BIS Yes No Hit Hit No Hit Hit Not Required Not Required No Not Required D&B Smartlinx Court Cases Results? Yes Not Required Results? be Required Yes Not Required Review by Legal May No Results Search not required Prepared by: Prachi Pawa Date: 10/12/2016 Research Analyst Instructions: 1. Review and confirm that all results are returned for your client. 2. Please note that you are still required to perform any Martindale-Hubbell search (if applicable) on each search subject. We have attached the web link below for your convenience:Martindale-Hubbellhttp://www.martindale.com/xp/- Martindale/home.xml 3. As needed, provide comment for any negative results. 4. If applicable, please obtain clearance from Compliance for all alerts. 5. Save any changes you make to this document and attach file to your KYC. Please note: Submission of a signed KYC is your confirmation that you have fully reviewed the research documents. No VII. Smartlinx VIII. Court Cases EFTA01407289 No Click here for results: I. RDC Results II. PCR Results III. Negative Media IV. Non-Negative Media Reviewer Comments (as necessary): No RDC alert (Please see attached) No PCR alert (Please see attached) There was no information found There was no information found V. Other Language Media Not Required VI. D&B Not Required Result Found(please see attached) Result Found(please see attached) For internal use only EFTA01407290 OFAC RESULTS RDC: 11593660 No Match Found GCIS 00000483290 Harry Beller Country:United States Date of Birth: 5/9/1956 PCR: C20161034949115 Harry Beller 12013247 NCA customised Auto-Closed No-Hit 12/10/2016 BIS RESULTS Negative Media: There was no information found Non-Negative Media: There was no information found Other Language Media: Not Required Public Records: 1 OF 1 RECORD(S) FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Copyright 2016 LexisNexis a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Date: 10/12/2016 Report processed by: DEUTSCHE BANK AGI I For internal use only EFTA01407291 Page 2 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Full Name BELLER, HARRY I Address 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY ADDITIONAL PERSONAL INFORMATION SSN DOB 081-52-XXXX Subject Summary Name Variations 1: BELLER, HARRY 2: BELLER, HARRY I SSNs Summary No. SSN 1: 081-52-XXXX DOBs Reported DOBs: 5/1956 Possible E-Mail Addresses BENYBYB@GAMIAL.COM NONAME@NONAME.COM HBELLER@NYSGMAIL.COM ALANBELLERl@GMAIL.COM BENYBYB@GMAIL.COM HAR"NYSGI C.C°M Others Using SSN - 0 records found Address Summary - 4 records found No. Address 1: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY 2: 3: 4: 1112 AVENUE V BROOKLYN, NY 11223-5024 KINGS COUNTY 1396 E 17TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-6011 KINGS COUNTY 1391 E 14TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-5901 KINGS COUNTY Address Details EFTA01407292 1: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 Address 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY For internal use only State Iss. New York Date Iss. Warnings Most frequent SSN attributed to subject: 1972-1974 5/1956 (Age:60) County ROCKLAND Phone (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 Gender LexID(sm) 000179328327 Dates Phone 9/1995 - 10/2016 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 EFTA01407293 Page 3 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Census Data for Geographical Region Median Head of Household Age: 46 Median Income: $39,922 Median Home Value: $640,385 Median Education: 14 years Household Members BELLER, ALAN B BELLER, Y BELLER, NAOMI I BELLER, BELLER, SHARON BELLER, STEVEN Other Associates STERN, MOSHE ROBERT 2: 1112 AVENUE V BROOKLYN, NY 11223-5024 Address 1112 AVENUE V BROOKLYN, NY 11223-5024 KINGS COUNTY Census Data for Geographical Region Median Head of Household Age: 41 Median Income: $42,198 Median Home Value: $415,686 Median Education: 14 years Household Members BELLER, NAOMI I Other Associates None Listed 3: 1396 E 17TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-6011 Address 1396 E 17TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-6011 KINGS COUNTY Census Data for Geographical Region Median Head of Household Age: 43 Median Income: $43,768 Median Home Value: $597,222 Median Education: 14 years Household Members BELLER, NAOMI I Other Associates STERN, MOSHE ROBERT 4: 1391 E 14TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-5901 Address 1391 E 14TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-5901 KINGS COUNTY Census Data for Geographical Region Median Head of Household Age: 31 EFTA01407294 Median Income: $57,262 Median Home Value: $534,091 Median Education: 13 years Household Members BELLER, NAOMI I For internal use only Dates Phone 11/1985 - 11/1985 (718) 376-0504 Dates 1/1990 - 9/1995 Phone (718) 375-7592 (845) 369-3825 Dates 11/1985 - 1/2003 Phone (718) 376-1277 (718) 375-0547 (845) 369-3825 EFTA01407295 Page 4 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Other Associates None Listed Voter Registrations - 1 records found 1: New York Voter Registration Registrant Information Name: BELLER, HARRY Residential Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Home Phone: 369-3825 SSN: 081-52-XXXX Date of Birth: 5/1956 Gender: Male Voter Information Registration Date: 8/15/1996 Last Vote Date: 11/6/2012 Party Affiliation: DEMOCRAT Active Status: ACTIVE Driver Licenses - 0 records found Professional Licenses - 0 records found Health Care Providers - 0 records found Health Care Sanctions - 0 records found Pilot Licenses - 0 records found Sport Licenses - 0 records found Real Property - 2 records found 1: Assessment Record for ROCKLAND County, NY Owner Information Name: BELLER HARRY I & NAOMI Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 County/FIPS: ROCKLAND Property Information Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 County/FIPS: ROCKLAND Data Source: B Legal Information Assessor's Parcel Number: 392689 56.05-3-46 Assessment Information Assessed Value: $86400 Total Market Value: $24400 2: Assessment Record for ROCKLAND County, NY Owner Information Name: BELLER HARRY I & NAOMI Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 County/FIPS: ROCKLAND Property Information For internal use only EFTA01407296 Page 5 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 County/FIPS: ROCKLAND Data Source: B Legal Information Assessor's Parcel Number: 392689 56.5-3-46 Assessment Information Assessed Value: $86400 Total Market Value: $24400 Motor Vehicle Registrations - 18 records found 1: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 12/17/2010 Registration Date: 12/17/2010 Registration Expiration Date: 12/16/2012 Vehicle Information VIN: 1HGCP2F71BA036772 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2011 Make: Honda Model: Accord Series: EX Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3296 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private License Plate Number: FJA3110 Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 2: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 1HGCP2F71BA036772 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2011 Make: Honda Model: Accord Series: EX Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3296 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I EFTA01407297 DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Lienholder Information Name: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP. Address: 201 LITTLE FALLS DR For internal use only EFTA01407298 Page 6 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP WILMINGTON, DE 19808-1674 NEW CASTLE COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 1/7/2011 Title Issue Date: 1/7/2011 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 3: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 1/6/2006 Registration Date: 12/4/2009 Registration Expiration Date: 1/5/2012 Vehicle Information VIN: 2HKRL1865YH555697 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2000 Make: Honda Model: Odyssey Series: EX Body Style: Sport Van Weight: 4170 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private Previous Plate Number: DLN7039 Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: DLN7039 Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 4: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 2HKRL1865YH555697 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2000 Make: Honda Model: Odyssey Series: EX Body Style: Sport Van Weight: 4170 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR EFTA01407299 MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 2/3/2006 Title Issue Date: 2/3/2006 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 5: NY MVR Registrant Information For internal use only EFTA01407300 Page 7 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 12/12/2007 Registration Date: 11/18/2009 Registration Expiration Date: 12/11/2011 Vehicle Information VIN: 1N4AL11E84C116956 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2004 Make: Nissan Model: Altima Series: S/SL Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Color: Green Weight: 2980 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private Previous Plate Number: EEW7717 Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: EEW7717 Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 6: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 1N4AL11E84C116956 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2004 Make: Nissan Model: Altima Series: S/SL Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Color: Green Weight: 2980 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 2/20/2008 Title Issue Date: 2/20/2008 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL EFTA01407301 7: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 10/5/2007 For internal use only EFTA01407302 Page 8 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Registration Date: 9/3/2009 Registration Expiration Date: 10/4/2011 Vehicle Information VIN: 1HGCM56147A209097 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2007 Make: Honda Model: Accord Series: VALUE PACKAGE Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3100 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private Previous Plate Number: EDC2769 Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: EDC2769 Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 8: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 1HGCM56147A209097 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2007 Make: Honda Model: Accord Series: VALUE PACKAGE Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3100 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 11/2/2007 Title Issue Date: 11/2/2007 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 9: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 12/27/2004 EFTA01407303 Registration Date: 11/8/2006 Registration Expiration Date: 12/26/2008 Vehicle Information VIN: 4T1BG22K11U032654 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2001 Make: Toyota Model: Camry Series: CE/LE/XLE For internal use only EFTA01407304 Page 9 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3027 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private Previous Plate Number: DCG8606 Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: DCG8606 Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 10: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 4T1BG22K11U032654 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2001 Make: Toyota Model: Camry Series: CE/LE/XLE Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3027 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 1/31/2005 Title Issue Date: 1/31/2005 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 11: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 10/28/2004 Registration Date: 10/28/2004 Registration Expiration Date: 12/16/2006 Vehicle Information VIN: 2FMDA5147TBA95068 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 1996 Make: Ford Model: Windstar Series: WAGON EFTA01407305 Body Style: Extended Sport Van Weight: 3665 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private Previous Plate Number: CGK6529 Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: CGK6529 Plate State: NY Source Information For internal use only EFTA01407306 Page 10 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 12: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 2FMDA5147TBA95068 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 1996 Make: Ford Model: Windstar Series: WAGON Body Style: Extended Sport Van Weight: 3665 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Lienholder Information Name: VALLEY NATIONAL BANK Address: 1445 VALLEY RD WAYNE, NJ 07470-2088 PASSAIC COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 1/21/1999 Title Issue Date: 1/21/1999 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 13: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 12/30/2002 Registration Date: 12/30/2002 Registration Expiration Date: 1/29/2005 Vehicle Information VIN: 4T1VK13E8PU064878 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 1993 Make: Toyota Model: Camry Series: XLE Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3285 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private EFTA01407307 Previous Plate Number: ACZ2791 Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: ACZ2791 Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 14: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: 4T1VK13E8PU064878 For internal use only EFTA01407308 Page 11 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 1993 Make: Toyota Model: Camry Series: XLE Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Weight: 3285 Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 3/1/2001 Title Issue Date: 3/1/2001 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 15: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 1/3/2000 Registration Date: 1/3/2000 Registration Expiration Date: 1/24/2002 Vehicle Information VIN: JN1P82513HU017355 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 1987 Make: Nissan Model: Sentra Series: E-GXE-XE Body Style: Station Wagon Plate Information License Plate Type: Private Previous Plate Number: F288VB Previous Plate State: NY License Plate Number: F288VB Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 16: NY MVR Vehicle Information VIN: JN1P82513HU017355 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK EFTA01407309 Model Year: 1987 Make: Nissan Model: Sentra Series: E-GXE-XE Body Style: Station Wagon Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR For internal use only EFTA01407310 Page 12 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Title Information Title Transfer Date: 1/2/1998 Title Issue Date: 1/2/1998 Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 17: NY MVR Registrant Information Registrant: BELLER, HARRY I DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Registration Information Original Registration Date: 3/31/1997 Registration Date: 3/31/1997 Registration Expiration Date: 5/6/1999 Vehicle Information VIN: 2G2AG81W9J9220914 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 1988 Make: Pontiac Model: 6000 Series: LE Body Style: Station Wagon Weight: 3550 Plate Information License Plate Type: Private License Plate Number: A391LZ Plate State: NY Source Information Data Source: GOVERNMENTAL 18: Non-Governmental Vehicle Record Vehicle Information VIN: KMHDU46D79U677622 Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK Model Year: 2009 Make: Hyundai Model: Elantra Series: GLS/SE Body Style: Sedan 4 Door Owner Information Name: BELLER, HARRY DOB: 5/1956 Address: 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 ROCKLAND COUNTY Source Date First Seen: 2/11/2016 EFTA01407311 Source Date Last Seen: 2/11/2016 Source Information Data Source: NON-GOVERNMENTAL Boats - 0 records found Aircraft - 0 records found Bankruptcy Information - 0 records found Judgments/Liens - 0 records found UCC Liens - 0 records found For internal use only EFTA01407312 Page 13 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP Fictitious Businesses - 0 records found Notice Of Defaults - 0 records found Potential Relatives - 8 records found 1st Degree: 8 No. 1. Full Name BELLER, NAOMI I SSN:082-70-XXXX DOB:5/1964 (Age: 52) Address/Phone 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 1396 E 17TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-6011 (718) 375-7592 (845) 369-3825 1112 AVENUE V BROOKLYN, NY 11223-5024 (718) 376-1277 (718) 375-0547 1391 E 14TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11230-5901 (718) 376-0504 414 S CLOVERDALE AVE APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-3444 2. BELLER, STEVEN SSN:131-80-XXXX DOB:12/1992 (Age: 23) 3. BELLER, SHARON SSN:082-76-XXXX 4. BELLER, I= SSN:082-76-XXXX 2635 NOSTRAND AVE APT 3A BROOKLYN, NY 11210-4604 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 (845) 369-3723 EFTA01407313 (845) 369-3825 414 S CLOVERDALE AVE APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-3444 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 5. BELLER, ALAN B SSN:116-78-XXXX 6. BELLER, BRIAN Y 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 7. BELLER, SAMUEL 1112 AVENUE V APT 19H For internal use only EFTA01407314 Page 14 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP No. Full Name • AKA BELLER, SAM • AKA BELLER, SAM • AKA SAMUEL, BELLER SSN:086-24-XXXX DOB:8/1928 (Age: 88) 8. BELLER, HANNA • AKA HANNA, BELLER SSN:124-26-XXXX DOB:5/1934 (Age: 82) Business Associates - 0 records found Person Associates - 6 records found No. Full Name Address 1: GOULD, WALTER R GOULD, WALTER P SOULD, WALTER 82 MONROE AVE DOVER, NJ 07801-5534 166 FRANKLIN RD APT B2 RANDOLPH, NJ 078691609 7148 COUNTY ROAD 32 NORWICH, NY 13815-3317 393 TURNER ST OXFORD, NY 13830-3276 79 MONROE AVE 87 DOVER, NJ 07801-5505 2: STERN, MOSHE ROBERT STERN, ROBERT M SR STERN, M SR 18 CHARLOTTE DR SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977-1126 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 1396 E 17TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 112306011 PO BOX 1058 WYNNEWOOD, PA 19096 12 GARFIELD RD MONROE, NY 10950-6027 3: STERN, YOAV 18 CHARLOTTE DR EFTA01407315 SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977-1126 058-60-XXXX (845) 362-6426 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 For internal use only 1/1961 081-46-XXXX (718) 375-7592 (845) 362-6426 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 (845) 783-1526 (845) 783-3106 (845) 783-9492 7/1935 Address/Phone BROOKLYN, NY 11223-5024 (718) 376-1277 251 174TH ST APT 206 SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FL 33160-3354 (718) 376-1277 1112 AVENUE S BROOKLYN, NY 11223-3330 1112 AVENUE V APT 19H BROOKLYN, NY 11223-5024 (718) 376-1277 1112 AVENUE S BROOKLYN, NY 11223-3330 111 2ND AVE APT V BROOKLYN, NY 11215-3810 SSN Phone DOB 155-42-XXXX (607) 843-6490 8/1951 5/1951 EFTA01407316 Page 15 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP No. Full Name Address 4 KIRYAS RADIN DR APT SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977-1354 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 KIRYAS RADIN DR SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977 4: STERN, GILAH RACHEL 18 CHARLOTTE DR SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977-1126 4 KIRYAS RADIN DR APT SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977-1354 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 5: SENDEROWICZ, JUDITH STERN, JUDITH 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 3410 N LAKE SHORE DR APT 80 CHICAGO, IL 60657-2813 7257 N LINCOLN AVE LINCOLNWOOD, IL 607121810 6: SENDEROWICZ, YOSSI 165 W SCHILLER ST APT 2R CHICAGO, IL 60610-1947 3410 N LAKE SHORE DR APT 80 CHICAGO, IL 60657-2813 203 W 94TH ST APT 4A NEW YORK, NY 100256942 1 CEDARLAWN AVE LAWRENCE, NY 115591714 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 Neighbors - 9 records found 12 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 Name COHEN, SHLOMO Y MARGARETTEN, GOLDY M EFTA01407317 MARGARETTEN, HERSHEL ROSENTHAL, JACK GLASS, THELMA LR Address 5 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2846 Phone (845) 426-0707 (845) 357-8209 214-41-XXXX (516) 239-9002 (646) 799-9528 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 219-15-XXXX (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 (847) 673-2115 (847) 933-2600 (847) 933-2605 2/1966 218-11-XXXX (845) 362-6426 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3723 (845) 369-3825 2/1966 SSN Phone DOB 6 GOLAR DR (845) 362-4541 For internal use only EFTA01407318 Page 16 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP SCHENK, AVRAHAM TZVI SCHENK, DAVID M SCHENK, PNINA M GOLDSTEIN, YISRAEL B MARKOWITZ, GILDA H MARKOWITZ, JEROME H LEVITAN, D LEVITAN, CHAIM ZEV SHVIRTZ, SHLOMO M LEVITAN, RACHEL Z BAUM, WALTER KURTZER, DORIS KURTZER, YITZCHOK BARRY LEIBOV, T LEIBOV, ISAAC J STEINBERG, NAOMI Y FARKASH, CHANA BLUMA FARKASH, SHMUEL FARKISH, DAVID FARKISH, REYZEL SHEINBERGER, BENZION PECHTER, CHAIM C PECHTER, CHANA PECHTER, ELI PECHTER, SHMUEL MIZRACHI, ANAT TZIPORRA MIZRACHI, JACOB 0 MIZRACHI, SHMUEL PTALIS, DAVID PTALIS, MILDRED PTALIS, SAMUEL N MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 9 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2846 (845) 426-3100 10 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 10 GOLAR DR APT 1 MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 11 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2846 (845) 368-2753 (914) 368-2753 (845) 357-3949 (845) 357-8503 13 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2846 14 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 EFTA01407319 (845) 357-3055 15 GOLAR DR MONSEY, NY 10952-2846 (845) 369-1888 (845) 357-2526 (914) 368-0228 Employment Locator - 1 records found 1: Company Name: CITIBANK Name: BELLER, HARRY I SSN: 081-52-XXXX Confidence: Medium Criminal Filings - 0 records found Cellular & Alternate Phones - 1 records found 1: Personal Information Name: BELLER, HARRY Address: 12 GOLAR DR For internal use only EFTA01407320 Page 17 Worldbase, 11/30/2013, THE RELATED COMPANIES LP MONSEY, NY 10952-2845 Phone Number: (212) 891-6428 Phone Type: Residential Carrier Information Carrier: VERIZON NEW YORK INC Carrier City: NEW YORK CITY Carrier State: NY Sources - 72 records found All Sources Deed Transfers Email addresses Historical Person Locator Motor Vehicle Registrations Person Locator 1 Person Locator 2 Person Locator 4 Phone PhonesPlus Records Tax Assessor Records Voter Registrations 72 Source Document(s) 4 Source Document(s) 8 Source Document(s) 4 Source Document(s) 20 Source Document(s) 3 Source Document(s) 9 Source Document(s) 1 Source Document(s) 6 Source Document(s) 1 Source Document(s) 15 Source Document(s) 1 Source Document(s) D&B: Not Required LEGAL RESULTS: Court Cases: Mark H. FELDMAN pro se, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, etc., et al., Defendants No. 79-758-Civ.-JWK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 509 F. Supp. 815; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 February 23, 1981 SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Corrected March 17, 1981. For internal use only EFTA01407321 Page 2 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas (CCH) P64,165 CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants moved the court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, which alleged violations of 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1 and 2. OVERVIEW: Plaintiff was denied membership on the medical staff, a privilege granted to most licensed physicians. He sued defendants, alleging that they had willfully and maliciously acted to prevent him from practicing podiatry in certain public and private hospitals by withholding that privilege. Specifically, he alleged that defendants' actions had deprived him of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; he also argued that their behavior violated 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1 and 2 as a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Defendants moved the court for dismissal. Noting that pro se pleadings mandated a more lenient standard, the court held that dismissal of plaintiff's antitrust claims would have been premature. Accordingly, the court determined that it would determine the substance of plaintiff's antitrust allegations after he had been afforded an opportunity to conduct limited discovery into the issues, and to reply to the objections then raised by defendants. Finding no federal right to membership on a hospital staff, the court granted defendants' motion with respect to the civil rights allegations. OUTCOME: The court concluded that plaintiff had no cognizable claim that his civil rights had been violated, but refused to dismiss his complaint as to his antitrust claim. Defendants' motion was thus granted in part and denied in part. CORE TERMS: interstate commerce, SHERMAN ACT, podiatrist, conspiracy, staff, administrators, orthopedic, jurisdictional, patients, doctors, medical staff, private hospitals, membership, podiatry, cause of action, civil rights, federal right, deprived, training, state law, pro se, involvement, class-based, profession, interstate, antitrust, invidious, licensed, nexus, color LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Motions to Dismiss [HN1] When determining a motion to dismiss, courts are obliged to construe EFTA01407322 all of the material allegations contained in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with those allegations accepted as true. Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Motions to Dismiss [HN2] Dismissal of an action on a bare-bones pleading should always be carefully and deliberately considered since it is a precarious option with a high mortality rate. Civil Procedure > Parties > Self-Representation > Pleading Standards For internal use only EFTA01407323 Page 3 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 [HN3] Pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Motions to Dismiss Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Pleadings > Complaints > Requirements [HN4] Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) enunciates the general standard that a pleading must meet in order to withstand a motion to dismiss. The pleader is entitled to considerable latitude regarding the mode of stating his claim for relief, provided the pleading gives reasonable notice of the claim or claims asserted. Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Commerce Clause > Interstate Commerce > General Overview Healthcare Law > Antitrust Actions > Facilities Transportation Law > Interstate Commerce > Federal Powers [HN5] The general scope of the Sherman Act ("Act"), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1, et seq., encompasses the entire regulatory power granted congress under the commerce clause. Although the Act includes more than simply a restraint on trade motivated by a desire to limit interstate commerce, federal enforcement must turn initially on whether or not the acts alleged in the complaint could likely have a substantial and adverse effect upon interstate commerce. Antitrust & Trade Law > Sherman Act > Jurisdiction [HN6] Even a wholly intrastate activity may be regulated by the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq., where that activity would place an unreasonable burden on the free and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce. Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope [HN7] In order to sustain a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege: that the defendants deprived him of some right secured by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States and that the defendants acted under color of state law. Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Protected Parties Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope [HN8] Both elements of a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action must be alleged and proven before relief can be forthcoming. Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Color of State Law > General Overview Healthcare Law > Actions Against Healthcare Workers > General Overview EFTA01407324 [HN9] Private entities are subject to the civil rights laws only if their activities are significantly affected with state involvement. Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope [HN10] A private hospital is subject to the provisions of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and U.S. Const. amend. XIV only if its activities are significantly affected with state involvement. For internal use only EFTA01407325 Page 4 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 Civil Rights Law > Private Discrimination Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope [HN11] Title 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and U.S. Const. amend. XIV do not preclude invidious discrimination by private parties. Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Color of State Law > General Overview [HN12] The mere existence of some government tie to a private organization is not sufficient to support a finding of state action where the state has not sufficiently involved itself in the invidious discrimination. Moreover, the state must be involved in more than some activity of the offending institution itself, it must have been involved with the activity that caused the injury to plaintiff. Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Color of State Law > General Overview [HN13] The mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the state for purposes of U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Civil Rights Law > Conspiracy > Knowing Nonprevention [HN14] No claim for relief will lie under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1986 until a valid claim has been established under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1985. COUNSEL: Mark H. Feldman, pro se. 3. Elisabeth Middlebrooks, Richard B. Adams, A. Blackwell Stieglitz, Miami, Fla., for defendants. OPINION BY: KEHOE OPINION [*816] MEMORANDUM ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS Mark H. Feldman, a licensed podiatrist, has filed this pro se action against multiple defendants, including many physicians, hospitals [*817] and medical administrators located in the southern Florida geographical area. Central to plaintiff's cause is his allegation that the defendants have willfully and maliciously acted to prevent him from practicing podiatry 1 in certain public and private hospitals by denying him membership on the medical staff normally granted licensed physicians. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' actions have amounted to a conspiracy in restraint of trade and EFTA01407326 that they have deprived him of his constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. 1 "The diagnosis and treatment of foot disorders." J. Schmidt, Attorneys' Dictionary of Medicine and Word Finder (1980). For internal use only EFTA01407327 Page 5 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 [**2] Plaintiff's original 54 page Complaint was dismissed without prejudice on the grounds that it was repetitious, redundant and violated rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was subsequently permitted to amend his Complaint and filed an Amended Complaint considerably abridged to 14 pages. The defendants have responded to the Amended Complaint by renewing their original joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and adopting the arguments (with some supplementation) contained therein. They contend that, notwithstanding its newly condensed format, the Amended Complaint remains incurably defective since, inter alia, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court reserved ruling on the matter until the defendants had an opportunity to depose the plaintiff in order to ascertain more fully the specific allegations underlying his cause of action. Plaintiff has now been deposed and accordingly, the motion to dismiss is ripe for consideration by the Court. I. THE STANDARD BY WHICH THE AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST BE MEASURED Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is [**3] directed against numerous parties, among them various doctors, medical administrators, public and private hospitals. 2 Plaintiff [*818] alleges: (a) that certain defendant physicians conspired with the defendant hospitals to prevent him from competing in the medical marketplace by arbitrarily rejecting his application to practice podiatry in those hospitals; (b) that the defendants conspired to ruin plaintiff's podiatry practice and drive him out of business; (c) that the defendants interfered with plaintiff's right to practice his chosen profession and to contract with patients regarding medical services; (d) that the defendants maliciously discriminated against him solely because he is a podiatrist and not a physician; and (e) that the defendants generally violated his civil rights. Plaintiff seeks a judgment from the Court which would primarily rule that he cannot be denied membership on the staff of the defendant hospitals, that would EFTA01407328 allow him the use of the medical facilities of those hospitals, and that would enjoin the defendants from controlling or regulating the practice of podiatry in any way. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive damages totaling 50 million [**4] dollars. 2. The Amended Complaint contains the following list of defendants: Jackson Memorial Hospital; The Board of Trustees, Public Health Trust of Dade County, Florida; Fred J. Crowell, President, Public Health Trust; William W. Cleveland, M.D., President of the Medical Staff; Robert Zeppa, M.D., Chief of Surgery; William McCollough, M.D., Chief of Orthopedics; Agusto Sarmiento, M.D.; Wallace Miller, M.D.; Harry Berrer, M.D.; Alan Cohen, M.D.; Edward Cullipher, M.D.; Harvey Grable, M.D.; Ledford Gregory, M.D.; Michael Gurver, M.D.; Marshall Hall, M.D.; Claude Holmes, M.D.; Arthur Pearl, M.D.; Salvador Ramirez, M.D.; Thomas Samartino, M.D.; Mario Stone, M.D.; William Terheyden, M.D.; Samuel Turek, M.D.; and Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corp., Inc.; and Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Care Center, Inc.; Dr. Jay Ziskind; Rufus Broadaway, M.D., Chief of Surgery; Marshall Hall, M.D., Chief of Orthopedics; Eugene Konrad, M.D., Chief of the Medical Staff; Harry Beller, M.D.; Alan B. Cohen, M.D.; Edward Cullipher, M.D.; Harvey Grable, M.D.; Salvador Ramirez, M.D.; Mario Stone, M.D.; and Mount Sinai Medical Center, Inc.; Alvin Goldberg, Executive Director; Harold Glick, M.D., Chief of the Medical Staff; Charles Weiss, M.D., Chief of Orthopedics; Sheldon Marne, D.P.M., Podiatrist; Mario Stone, M.D.; Samuel Turek, M.D.; Alvin Tobis, M.D.; Lester Russin, M.D.; and South Broward Hospital District, Memorial Hospital of Hollywood, Inc.; Maynard Abrams, Chairman, South Broward Hospital District; S.A. Mudano, Administrator; Robert Berger, M.D., Chief of Staff; Harry Fisher, M.D., Chief of Orthopedics; Paul Baxt, M.D.; Larry Rosenbaum, M.D.; Alfonso Petty, M.D.; George Crane, M.D.; Robert Niles, M.D.; North Broward Hospital District, Inc.; North Broward Hospital District Board of Commissioners; Hamilton Forman, Chairman; Bernie Welch, District Director and Hospital Administrator; Broward General Medical Center, Inc.; George F. Rahilly, M.D., Chief of Staff and Orthopedic Surgeon; and North Broward Hospital, Inc.; Robert L. Kennedy, Administrator; B. McNierney, M.D.; J. Gamble, M.D.; Niles Lestrange, M.D.; Peter Sciarrett, M.D.; Wylie Scott, M.D.; and Florida Medical Center Hospital, Inc.; Maxwell Dauer, Ph.D.; Frank Stein, M.D.; Alvin Stein, M.D.; Gary Krulik, M.D.; and Bennett Community Hospital, Inc.; and Holy Cross Hospital, Inc.; and North Beach Medical Center, Inc.; and Pembroke Pines General Hospital, Inc.; David Drant, M.D.; Martin Medelson, For internal use only EFTA01407329 Page 6 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 M.D.; Alfonso Petti, M.D.; Robert Bronfman, M.D.; Neil Beinhaker, M.D.; Larry Rosenbaum, M.D.; and Imperial Point Hospital, Inc.; George F. Rahilly, M.D.; Sidney Cole, M.D.; Doctors General Hospital, Inc.; D. L. Gross, Administrator; E. Rockwood, D.O.; International Hospital, Inc.; John Silver, Administrator; and North Miami General Hospital, Inc.; Robert Bruce, Administrator; Lloyd Moriber, M.D., Chief of Orthopedics; Melvyn Drucker, M.D.; and Cypress Community Hospital, Inc.; Barry Schochet, Administrator; and North Ridge General Hospital, Inc.; David Cornell, Administrator. Some of the defendants have been listed more than once in the style of the Amended Complaint. One of the contentions raised by the defendants in their joint motion to dismiss is that not all defendants have been properly served. The Court will reserve ruling on the service aspects of the motion to dismiss. [**5] Plaintiff invokes the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201, 2202, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. The Court has jurisdiction to decide all of the issues raised by the motion to dismiss. [HN1] When determining a motion to dismiss, of course, the Court is obliged to construe all of the material allegations contained in the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with those allegations accepted as true. See, e.g., Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U S. 411, 89 S. Ct. 1843, 23 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1969); Voter Information Project v. City of Baton Rouge, 612 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1980); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1363 (1969). Moreover, [HN2] dismissal of an action on a barebones pleading should always be carefully and deliberately considered since it is a precarious option with a high mortality rate. Voter Information Project, supra; Barber v. M/V "Blue Cat," 372 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1967). Plaintiff has proceeded pro se with his action from its inception despite the Court's admonition that the assistance of counsel would be highly beneficial in this case, a cause involving several subtle and complex issues of law. [**6] In considering the motion to dismiss, however, the Court has not penalized plaintiff for proceeding in his own behalf where the law mandates that [HN3] pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, EFTA01407330 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972); Craft v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, 550 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 926, 98 S. Ct. 408, 54 L. Ed. 2d 285 (1977); Shaw v. Briscoe, 541 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 933, 97 S. Ct. 1556, 51 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1977); Bruce v. Wade, 537 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1976); Williams v. McCall, 531 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir. 1976); Cook v. Whiteside, 505 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1974). 3 Indeed, the Court finds plaintiff's Amended Complaint to be rather skillfully drafted when considering the complex issues raised and the fact that plaintiff has no prior legal experience. 3. Although these cases all arise in the context of prisoner pro se pleadings, the same standard should apply to a nonprisoner plaintiff where he chooses to proceed in his own behalf. [**7] Following the guidance of these fundamental principles, the Court has conducted a careful review of the Amended Complaint and concludes that plaintiff is unable to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to that portion of the Amended Complaint asserting violations of his civil rights. As for the remainder of the Amended Complaint alleging antitrust violations, [*819] the Court concludes that it would be premature to dismiss at the present stage of the proceedings. A discussion of the rationale behind this determination is in order. For internal use only EFTA01407331 Page 7 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 II. GENERAL PLEADING REQUIREMENTS [HN4] Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) enunciates the general standard that a pleading must meet in order to withstand a motion to dismiss. The pleader is entitled to considerable latitude regarding the mode of stating his claim for relief, provided the pleading gives reasonable notice of the claim or claims asserted. The Court considers the Amended Complaint amply sufficient to meet the general notice requirements of Rule 8 by adequately setting forth a claim and giving the defendants fair notice of its basis. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and [**8] Procedure : Civil §§ 1216, 1217, 1286 (1969). 4 4. Out of an abundance of caution and at the defendants' request, the Court ordered plaintiff deposed in order that the underlying nature of his claim was more readily understood. As a result, the defendants were fully apprised of the nature of this claim. III. SHERMAN ACT ALLEGATIONS The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., was enacted in 1890 to prohibit combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade (Section 1), and to regulate monopolies (Section 2). Federal jurisdiction is predicated upon an allegation that the actions of the defendant have some nexus or connection with interstate commerce. Before the federal court can acquire jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions substantially and adversely affect interstate commerce. Failure to satisfy this threshold jurisdictional prerequisite will result in the dismissal of the complaint. [HN5] The general scope of the Sherman Act encompasses the entire regulatory power granted Congress [**9] under the Commerce Clause. Apex Hosiery Company v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 60 S. Ct. 982, 84 L. Ed. 1311 (1940). Although the act includes more than simply a restraint on trade motivated by a desire to limit interstate commerce, federal enforcement must turn initially on whether or not the acts alleged in the complaint could likely have a substantial and adverse effect upon interstate commerce. Hospital Building Company v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 96 S. Ct. 1848, 48 L. Ed. EFTA01407332 2d 338 (1976); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186, 95 S. Ct. 392, 42 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1974); Burke v. Ford, 389 U.S. 320, 88 S. Ct. 443, 19 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1967). If so, [HN6] even a wholly intrastate activity may be regulated by the Sherman Act where that activity would place an unreasonable burden on the "free and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce." Rex Hospital, supra, 96 S. Ct. at 1853. As one commentator described the jurisdictional test to be applied in determining the sufficiency of a Sherman Act complaint: [The] test applies when the challenged conduct is not "in commerce;" it will nevertheless be subject to the Act if it materially affects interstate commerce. In deciding [**10] these issues, quantitative factors become pertinent. It is necessary not only that there be a logical causal connection between the activity and the flow of commerce, it is also necessary that the flow of commerce be affected in some substantial way; if the impact is trivial, the Sherman Act does not apply. Thus, the only commercial activities beyond the reach of the Sherman Act are those which are local in the double sense that they are neither within nor have any significant effect on the flow of interstate commerce. (footnotes omitted) L. Sullivan, The Law of Antitrust (1977), § 233 at 710. For internal use only EFTA01407333 Page 8 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 Plaintiff's allegations respecting interstate commerce are contained in paragraphs 24 through 28 of the Amended Complaint: 24. A significant number of patients, actual and potential of the plaintiff and defendant doctors and hospitals, are covered by the Federal Medicare and State Medicaid Programs. Treatment of those patients generates millions of dollars of interstate revenue. [*820] 25. Defendant hospitals annually receive millions of dollars from insurance companies located outside of Florida for medical and surgical services provided by defendant [**11] hospitals and doctors to non permanent nonresident patients. 26. Defendant doctors and hospitals purchase millions of dollars of supplies and equipment from sources outside of the state. 27. Rules and regulations promulgated by defendant doctors and hospitals to control the practice of Podiatrists, by limiting the privileges, refusing admittance, came from out of state sources (sic), as in the instance of defendant Jackson Memorial Hospital, whose GUIDELINES FOR PODIATRY came from THE DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Mass. 28. Cessation and interruption of Podiatry Clinics and Training programs in defendant hospitals denied to out of state Podiatrists essential surgical training necessary to compete for surgical patients in their home States. Elimination of said training programs by defendant hospitals and orthopedic surgeons prevented out of state Podiatrists from coming to Florida specifically for such surgical training programs. Plaintiff's first jurisdictional hurdle is to establish the required nexus between the defendants' challenged activity and interstate commerce. It is this Court's [**12] determination that plaintiff has met this burden and properly invokes the Court's jurisdiction under the Sherman Act. The restraint that plaintiff opposes in his action is that involving an alleged conspiracy by the defendants to deny podiatrists in general, 5 of access to hospital facilities, that access accorded members of the hospital's medical staff. Membership in the medical staff is usually limited to licensed physicians. 5. There are no class action allegations contained in the Amended Complaint. The hospitals involved in this action furnish medical care and services to the community in a variety of ways: by caring for patients, training doctors and staff EFTA01407334 personnel, developing research facilities, and extending staff privileges to private physicians. Much of this activity happens to spill across the boundaries of Florida and into the stream of interstate commerce. It is this activity of providing medical care to patients that the defendants allegedly [**13] seek to exclude plaintiff from participation and involvement. It is this activity that must be connected with interstate commerce in order to sustain jurisdiction. Plaintiff must establish that the medical services supplied by the defendants have the required effect on interstate commerce. He is not required to show that the alleged conspiratorial actions of the defendants have any connection with interstate commerce. To rule otherwise would vitiate the intended scope of the law and impose an insuperable burden upon a plaintiff alleging an anticompetition conspiracy. Such a conspiracy would seldom reach interstate proportions though the object of the conspiracy might be federal in scope. For internal use only and the plaintiff in particular, a certain kind EFTA01407335 Page 9 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 The Court's conclusion that the Amended Complaint is jurisdictionally sound is supported by the recent decision of McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, 444 U.S. 232, 100 S. Ct. 502, 62 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1980), in which the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in dismissing a complaint which alleged a price fixing conspiracy involving several Louisiana real estate brokerage firms The Court stated that the plaintiff could establish the requisite jurisdiction under the Sherman [**14] Act by demonstrating that a substantial effect on interstate commerce was generated by the defendants' brokerage activities. Referring specifically to the requirement that plaintiff must allege a relationship between the activity involved and some aspect of interstate commerce, the Court observed: To establish the jurisdictional element of a Sherman Act violation it would be sufficient for petitioners to demonstrate a [*821] substantial effect on interstate commerce generated by respondents' brokerage activity. Petitioners need not make the more particularized showing of an effect on interstate commerce caused by the alleged conspiracy to fix commission rates, or by those other aspects of respondents' activity that are alleged to be unlawful. The validity of this approach is confirmed by an examination of the case law. If establishing jurisdiction required a showing that the unlawful conduct itself had an effect on interstate commerce, jurisdiction would be defeated by a demonstration that the alleged restraint failed to have its intended anticompetitive effect. This is not the rule of our cases. See American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 811, 66 S. [**15] Ct. 1125, 1139, 90 L. Ed. 1575 (1946); United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 225, n. 59, 60 S. Ct. 811, 846, 84 L. Ed. 1129 (1940).... Id. 100 S. Ct. at 509. Defendants have cited several cases in their memoranda which would appear to support dismissal of the Amended Complaint: Wolf v. Jane Phillips Episcopal Memorial Medical Center, 513 F.2d 684 (10th Cir. 1975); Riggall v. Washington County Medical Society, 249 F.2d 266 (8th Cir. 1957); Spears Free Clinic and Hospital v. Cleere, 197 F.- 2d 125 (10th Cir. 1952). These cases all involved dismissals of complaints for defective jurisdictional allegations under the Sherman Act in situations similar to that now before EFTA01407336 this Court. The dismissed antitrust complaints in the cases cited appear to involve only general jurisdictional allegations devoid of the specificity contained in plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Furthermore, these cases explicitly reject the analysis described above which links jurisdiction to the stream of interstate commerce by focusing upon the interstate nature of the defendants' business of providing hospital care and services. E. g. Wolfe, supra at 687-688. It is the Court's opinion that the [**16] proper standard to be used is that illustrated in the recent Supreme Court cases, McLain, supra; Rex Hospital, supra, that place the emphasis upon the interstate character of the defendants activities in general and not solely the alleged conspiratorial acts, thereby precluding dismissal of a complaint before the plaintiff has at least been accorded the opportunity of discovering facts in support of his claim. To the extent that the cases cited by the defendants apply a contrary standard, the Court declines to follow them. The Court will determine the substance of plaintiff's antitrust allegations after he has had an opportunity to conduct limited discovery into the issues and can prepare an adequate response to the other objections raised by the defendants. Defendants will then be allowed to renew their remaining objections to the Sherman Act claim in an appropriate manner. IV. CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS For internal use only EFTA01407337 Page 10 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 (a) § 1983 allegations Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is relatively simple and straightforward in its language, 6 [HN7] in order to sustain his claim plaintiff must allege: (1) that the defendants deprived him of some right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) [**17] that the defendants acted under color of state law. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); Fadjo v. Coon, 633 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1981); Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1980). [HN8] Both of these elements of a § 1983 action must be alleged and proven before relief can be forthcoming. An inspection of the Amended Complaint reveals that plaintiff can prove no set of facts that will permit the relief he seeks since he has been deprived of no federal or constitutional right. Nor have all of the defendants acted under color of state law. 6 "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." [**18] [*822] The defendants' alleged willful and malicious exclusion of the plaintiff from the medical staff simply does not constitute a violation of a federal right. Plaintiff has cited the Court to no authority supporting the proposition that a podiatrist has a federal right to membership on a hospital staff. Nor has the Court independently found any authority to support plaintiff's civil rights claims. To the contrary, the Fifth Circuit recently held that a podiatrist's constitutional rights went untrammeled when he was denied staff membership at a public hospital. Shaw v. Hospital Authority of Cobb County, 614 F.2d 946 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 955, 101 S. Ct. 362, 66 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1980). 7 7. Although this case arose as an action to remedy alleged due process and equal protection violations and was not brought pursuant to the civil rights laws, the Shaw court nonetheless found that Dr. Shaw suffered no violation of a federal right on facts EFTA01407338 nearly identical to those sub judice. The Court ruled that in the absence of a showing that the denial of staff privileges was not rationally based, or that it was precipitated by invidious racial discrimination, "it is not the province of this court to legislate the final resolution of a problem indigenous to the medical profession." Id. at 952. There was also some indication given by plaintiff at his deposition that his cause of action really involved a due process and equal protection claim. See plaintiff's deposition at 52. [**19] By adopting the memorandum decision of the district court, the Fifth Circuit found no constitutional defect in excluding Dr. Shaw from membership on a hospital medical staff by reason of his status as a podiatrist. The Court declined to interfere in an area that traditionally has been the province of the medical profession and not ordinarily subject to governmental regulation. In light of Shaw, the Court must reject plaintiff's invitation to find that he has been deprived of a federal right in this instance. The Court agrees with the private hospital and physician defendants that they are not liable under § 1983 even if plaintiff had been deprived of some federal right. It is established that [HN9] private entities are subject to the Civil Rights laws only if their activities are significantly affected with state involvement: For internal use only EFTA01407339 Page 11 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 The district court correctly held that [HN10] a private hospital is subject to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment only if its activities are significantly affected with state involvement. [HN11] Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment do not preclude invidious discrimination by private parties. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 3 [**20] S. Ct. 18, 21, 27 L. Ed. 835, 841 (1883) Greco v. Orange Memorial Hospital Corporation, 513 F.2d 873, 877-878 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1000, 96 S. Ct. 433, 46 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1975). [HN12] The mere existence of some government tie to a private organization is not sufficient to support a finding of state action where the state has not sufficiently involved itself in the invidious discrimination. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972). Moreover, the state must be involved in more than some activity of the offending institution itself, it must have been involved with the activity that caused the injury to plaintiff. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 95 S. Ct. 449, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1979) ("(T)he inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." 8 ); New York Jaycees v. United States Jaycees, 512 F.2d 856 (2d Cir. 1975). Accord, Sims v. Jefferson Downs, 611 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1980). 8. Id. 419 U.S. at 351, 95 S. Ct. at 453; also quoted in Sims v. Jefferson Down, infra at 611. [**21] Plaintiff's only reference to the state action nexus by the private hospital defendants is that these hospitals are licensed by state law. 9 [HN13] "The mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth [*823] Amendment." Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., supra at 350, 95 S. Ct. at 453. 9. Paragraph 49 C of the Amended Complaint refers to Fla.Stat. Chap. 395 concerning Hospital Licensing and Regulation procedures for hospitals situated in this state. Plaintiff's claims do not involve any racially discriminatory practices that might justify a EFTA01407340 more expansive approach to the issue. Based upon the state action allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, the private hospital and physician defendants are not subject to suit under § 1983 for their actions against the plaintiff, actions involving the administrative affairs of the hospitals. The policy of the Orange Memorial Hospital Corporation does [**22] not impinge upon the rights of a racial group seeking admittance and treatment, but rather affects primarily only the internal affairs of the facility. A secondary effect of the corporation's policy is admittedly to discriminate against persons seeking to obtain and physicians desiring to perform elective abortions. We feel, however, that the interest of the hospital in ordering its internal administrative affairs outweighs the interest of the people disadvantaged in this case. Greco, supra at 880. What involvement the state may have through its licensing procedures is not actionable unless these regulations somehow compelled the hospitals or physicians to act against For internal use only EFTA01407341 Page 12 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 plaintiff in an unlawful manner. Waters v. St. Francis Hospital, 618 F.2d 1105 (5th Cir. 1980). There is no allegation to this effect in the Amended Complaint. (b) § 1985 allegations Plaintiff has no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) 10 since the Amended Complaint fails to contain any allegations that would show both the private deprivation of the enjoyment of the laws and an invidious class-based discriminatory motivation (usually, but not always, involving racial bias). McLellan v. Mississippi Power [**23] & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977). 11 10. "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws...." § 1985(1) and (2) are inapplicable. 11. This was an en banc decision in which the majority held that an employee discharged from private employment solely because he filed a petition in voluntary bankruptcy has no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The majority exhaustively analyzed the application of the statute by following the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S. Ct. 1790, 29 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1971). The Supreme Court in Griffin held that § 1985(3) reaches private conspiracies as well as those performed under color of state law and elucidated the necessary elements to successfully maintain a cause of action under this section. In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit expressly reserved decision on whether Congress intended only racial bias to activate the provisions of the statute but advised restraint when a court is confronted with classbased discrimination grounded in a non-racial animus. McLellan, supra at 929. [**24] Plaintiff has not alleged and the Court fails to discern any illegal conduct committed by the defendants in acting to deprive plaintiff of a position on the hospital medical staff. 12 Moreover, there has been no allegation of any racially motivated discrimination against plaintiff by the defendants. He alleges a class-based animus against him as a podiatrist. This discrimination is not actionable under the cases heretofore construing EFTA01407342 the reach of § 1985(3): Federal Courts have recognized that those who are discriminated against because of political views or associations fall with (sic) the protective scope of Section 1985(2) and (3). Courts have found a class-based animus sufficient to support causes of action where the conspiracy is directed toward supporters of a particular political candidate, Cameron v. Brock, [*824] 473 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1973) and Means v. Wilson, 522 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 958, 96 S. Ct. 1436, 47 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1976); voters who were deceived about the actual effect of their vote, Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910, 94 S. Ct. 2607, 41 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1974); individuals critical [**25] of the President and his policies, Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 930, 96 S. Ct. 280, 46 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1975); members of a group advocating an unpopular position, Puentes v. Sullivan, 425 F. Supp. 249 (W.D.Tex.1977); laborers who are not members of a union, Scott v. Moore, 461 F. Supp. 224 (E.D.Tex.1978); members of the teaching profession who talk or associate with the CIA, Selzer v. Berkowitz, 459 F. Supp. 347 (E.D.N.Y.1978); and students who exercise their first amendment rights by joining certain organizations. Brown v. Villanova University, 378 F. Supp. 342 (E.D.Pa.1974). Kimble v. D. J. McDuffy, Inc., 623 F.2d 1060, 1067 (5th Cir. 1980) (rehearing en banc pending). 12. The Court excludes the Sherman Act count contained in the Amended Complaint which alleges an anti-competitive conspiracy on the part of the defendants. that law. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 & 26. [**26] For these reasons, plaintiff's § 1985 claim cannot be sustained. For internal use only If plaintiff sustains these allegations with proof, a remedy is already provided for by EFTA01407343 Page 13 509 F. Supp. 815, *; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11119, **; 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64,165 (c) § 1986 allegations [HN14] No claim for relief will lie under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 13 until a valid claim has been established under § 1985. Hamilton v. Chaffin, 506 F.2d 904 (5th Cir. 1975); Zentgraf v. Texas A & M University, 492 F. Supp. 265 (S.D.Tex.1980); Shore v. Howard, 414 F. Supp. 379 (N.D.Tex.1976). Plaintiff having established no § 1985 claim, the § 1986 claim must also be dismissed. 13. This section extends liability in damages to those persons "who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 ... are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, (neglect or refuse) so to do...." (d) Summary Whether plaintiff couches his claims for relief under the rubric of due process, equal protection or the civil rights laws, the Amended Complaint alleging violations of plaintiff's civil rights must be dismissed for failure to state a claim [**27] upon which relief can be granted. V. CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the applicable law, the Court concludes that plaintiff has no cognizable claim under either 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 or 1986. The Court further concludes that it would be premature to dismiss the Amended Complaint as to the Sherman Act claim without permitting plaintiff an opportunity to conduct limited discovery and respond to the objections raised by the defendants, should they elect to renew them. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants' joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (a) that portion of the Amended Complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; (b) that portion of the Amended Complaint alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 presently meet the minimum jurisdictional requirements of the Sherman Act; and (c) the remaining objections raised by the defendants to the Amended Complaint are hereby DENIED without prejudice to renew at a later date upon proper motion. EFTA01407344 *** THIS DATA IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY *** SUPREME COURT CIVIL SUITS FOR KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK CASE-NAME: BELLER,ANNA & HARRY BELLER v. CITY WILLETS POINT CONTRACTING CORP., & FRAND MASCALI For internal use only EFTA01407345 Page 14 BELLER,ANNA v. CITY CONTRACTING CO., INC STATUS: DISPOSED ON 06/30/1987; SETTLED BEFORE TRIAL ACTION: OTHER TORTS NEGLIGENCE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: 02/25/1986 NOTE OF ISSUE FILED: 02/21/1986 INDEX-NUMBER: 0155871983 JURY REQUESTED BY: PLAINTIFF JUDGE: PART 25 - JAMES W. HUTCHERSON PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: ROSENBERG & HOROWITZ, S & H 122 E 42ND ST NEW YORK, N.Y. 10006 0X7-9280 DEFENDANT ATTORNEY: PAUL A CROTTY, CORP COUNSEL 100 CHURCH STREET 4TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10007 212 788-0476 For internal use only EFTA01407346