Arthur J. Gallagher & amp; asked a federal court in Arizona to dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming that its prison management unit promoted the use of 831 (b) prisoners that resulted in the imprisonment of illegal prisoners.
The process against Gallagher and its Artex Risk Solutions Inc. unit was filed in December in the US District Court in Phoenix on behalf of a group of Arizona-based companies claiming that they had to repay taxes, penalties, and interest in ruling the IRS studies on their use of 831 (b) prisoners, also known as microcaptives. The complainants in Dimitri Shivkov v Artex Risk Solutions Inc. seeking class activity status, citing breaches of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act as well as breach of obligation, professional malpractice or negligence and negligent distortion or fraud, among other accusations, and seeking real and punished damages.
"Cutting off the many tangled branches of the complaint reveals its predatory documentation: in order to earn fees and commissions, the accused applicants set up and operate imprisoned insurance companies ̵
The trial of 138 pages attempting to claim 13 reasons for action spanning 13 years as the 45 named plaintiffs claim on a supposed class against the 12 defendants, according to Gallagher's rejection proposal.
"This is a tactic associated with parties, claims, and verbal claims. Movement is stated." It aims to overwhelm the reader to review the simple, deadly deficiencies that require dismissal of the complaint in the event of the defendants' movement to force arbitration not granted. "
The federal and Arizona RICO violations in the trial are" three times-defective "and should be dismissed because they ignore the 9th US circuit law, a defendant only claimed to have an" important " role is not responsible, the plaintiff overruled the supreme court's "fundamental principle" to claim that a company different from the RICO instructs that the alleged company and the RICO in this case are the same, and because the plaintiffs invoke "RICO predicate acts of fraud, but failing to commit uniqueness ", according to the proposal.
Another reason to The rejection of the trial is that the contracts that governed the formation and operation of each prison specifically state that the defendants are not the applicant's councils, and the plaintiff alone is responsible for taxes and legal issues, as proposed.
"Defendant was not responsible for providing taxes or legal advice to the plaintiff," the movement said.
The damages also override the financial loss rule that requires the contractors to seek recovery in accordance with the terms of the contract for any financial damage, as proposed.
"Tellingly, the plaintiff's breach of contract and damages claim all exactly the same financial damage," said the movement. "The applicant can recover, if at all, only under the contract. The damages would be rejected."
A Gallagher spokesman declined to comment.
Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and the defendants could not immediately be reached for comments.