ALLENTOWN – A lawsuit accusing a chain of other companies and individuals of conspiring to provide them with inauthentic equipment and violating the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act may be dismissed if complete and proper service is not made to all defendants, the Court says.
IM Border Group, LLC of Reading first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 25 versus PY&F Enterprises, Inc., Yossi Flax and Elie Flax of Toms River, N.J., Singh & Daughters, LLC and Mandeep Singh of Henderson, N.V., Solaryna Energy and Frank Sawaf of Corona, Calif., plus Tesla Energy and David Hijorth, of North Richland Hills, Texas.
IMBG is engaged in the interstate purchase and sales of PPE, which according to the company, “must be manufactured to strict tolerances to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people who ultimately utilize these items to protect themselves and others from infectious diseases, including COVID-19.”
IMBG also requires that the PPE “be verified by its providers as having been manufactured, guaranteed and warranted by approved companies, such as 3M.”
From October through December of 2020, IMBG purchased, on three separate occasions, “Authentic 3M 1860 N95 masks”, in some instances utilizing purchase orders to the enterprise defendant P&YF Enterprises, Inc.
The suit said that the allegedly authentic masks were purchased from defendant P&YF Enterprises, Inc. on Nov. 10, 2020, Nov. 19, 2020 and Dec. 29, 2020. At purchase time of the allegedly authentic masks, plaintiff IMBG wired funds in the amount of $68,535 on Nov. 10, 2020, $63,800 on Nov. 19, 2020, $160,000 on Nov. 20, 2020 and $31,752 on Dec. 29, 2020.
“Shortly after the third purchase of the allegedly authentic masks, plaintiff was informed by one of its customers that the lot numbers of the N95 masks that had been delivered to that customer had been independently identified as fake and fraudulent. Upon review by plaintiff, it was discovered that all three of the purchases of the allegedly authentic masks were designated by defendants to have been manufactured in the same lot number, which had been identified as fake and fraudulent by the 3M Company,” the suit stated.
“Upon discovering that the allegedly authentic masks that had been purchased were fake and fraudulent, plaintiff contacted P&YF Enterprises, Inc. to ascertain whether defendant could evidence that they were, in fact, authentic. Despite multiple inquiry by plaintiff, P&YF Enterprises, Inc. was unable and/or refused to verify the authenticity of the allegedly authentic masks.”
The suit alleged that upon further investigation, the plaintiff “discovered that P&YF Enterprises, Inc. was part of a nationwide organization that was counterfeiting and selling fake and fraudulent 3M 1860 and 1860S N95 masks.”
“Upon further investigation, plaintiff uncovered the fact that P&YF Enterprises, Inc. had obtained the allegedly authentic masks from Tesla Energy; who had obtained the allegedly authentic masks from Singh & Daughters LLC, who had obtained the allegedly authentic masks from Solaryna Energy,” per the suit.
“Upon discovery that the masks were not authentic, plaintiff notified its customers to prevent any harm from occurring from their use. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, none of the allegedly authentic masks were used prior to the discovery that they were fake or fraudulent.
UPDATE
According to a June 14 filing and associated review of the Court’s records, it showed that service of the complaint was not made to any of the defendants, apart from the Flaxes.
“In order to eliminate a delay in bringing this case to trial, service must be made by June 23, 2021, in accordance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proof of service must be filed with the Clerk’s Office within five days of service. If service is not made within the time set forth above, the court may dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of prosecution,” Shana Restucci, Civil Deputy Clerk to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Edward G. Smith.
For counts of RICO Act violations, civil conspiracy, fraud and breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $324,087, plus other such relief as the Court deems proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph A. Caprara of Caprara Law, in Radnor.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-01426
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com