Hubbuch v. Helbraun & Levey LLP
1:25-cv-00717
| E.D.N.Y | Jul 17, 2025Background
- Edward Hubbuch, proceeding pro se, sued two law firms and their lawyers (Helbraun & Levey LLP and Gleichenhaus, Marchese & Weishaar P.C., plus individual attorneys) alleging RICO violations and fraudulent inducement connected to legal services for Hubbuch's Brooklyn hospitality business.
- The alleged misconduct arose from defendants' handling of a landlord-tenant dispute and related litigation, with Hubbuch claiming his attorneys failed to file suit, missed an eviction hearing, induced unfavorable settlement terms, and did not fulfill financial assistance promises.
- Hubbuch claims the attorneys intentionally bungled a breach-of-contract suit, then conspired with another attorney (Bogucki) to encourage bankruptcy as a cover-up.
- Hubbuch previously brought similar malpractice and fraud claims in state court against these defendants, but voluntarily discontinued those actions.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the federal complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and also sought Rule 11 sanctions, as did Plaintiff.
- The court ultimately dismissed the federal RICO claim with prejudice, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, and denied both sides' motions for sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO claim sufficiency against HL | Defendants committed fraud, extortion, wire fraud as a scheme | No sufficient pattern of racketeering; only litigation conduct | Claim dismissed; No predicate acts per 2d Circuit law |
| RICO claim sufficiency against GMW | GMW, via Bogucki, conspired in fraudulent scheme/cover-up | No direct fraud, only one video call, no ongoing conduct | Claim dismissed; conduct too limited, not racketeering |
| Pattern of racketeering | Defendants’ acts form continuing scheme meeting RICO pattern | Acts were limited in time, people, and context | No closed- or open-ended continuity; not sufficient |
| Motions for Rule 11 sanctions (both sides) | Other party acted in bad faith, frivolously, or to harass | Other side’s filings unwarranted and improper | Both motions denied; no clear violation or bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Moss v. Morgan Stanley Inc., 719 F.2d 5 (civil RICO elements summary)
- Spool v. World Child Int’l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178 (RICO continuity requirements for "pattern of racketeering")
- First Capital Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159 (temporal continuity for RICO patterns)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (liberal construction for pro se litigants)
- MinedMap, Inc. v. Northway Mining, LLC, 2022 WL 570082 (elements and scrutiny of RICO claims)