Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County Judge: Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Prepared: April 9, 2026 Classification: Attorney Work Product / Privileged
| Date | Event | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Sept 2022 | KSU pays ~$600K to NGM — deposited in trust, earmarked for future work | ~$600,000 |
| Dec 22, 2022 | KSU pays ~$1.4M to NGM — outstanding debt payment | ~$1,400,000 |
| Dec 27, 2022 | Merritt Green letter to Colwell (arbitration case manager) | — |
| Dec 28, 2022 | Green follow-up: "payment shall be made this week" | — |
| Dec 29, 2022 | Wire sent to Litman's Fidelity account | $694,478.67 |
| Jan 3, 2023 | Wire received at Fidelity (acct 645-375268) | $694,478.67 |
| Jan 3, 2023 | Litman forwards XML Financial notification to counsel (Scully) | — |
| Jan 10, 2023 | Goldberg identifies $2,055 discrepancy in Q3 2020 | — |
| Jan 12, 2023 | True-up wire: 20% × $2,055 = $411 | $411.00 |
Key quotes from Merritt Green's letter:
"On Thursday, December 22nd, NGM received approximately $1.4 million from a client that Mr. Litman has 'origination credit' for."
"This same client provided approximately $600K in late September, but these monies were earmarked by the client for fees/expenses to be completed and the funds were deposited in the firm's trust account."
"Although NGM has received approximately $2 million, only approximately $1.4 million was for outstanding debt."
NGM's position: "payments to Mr. Litman should be offset by fees and expenses owed to NGM."
"So long as this receivable resulted in NGM being underwater, pursuant to their contracts, they had no obligation to make payments to Mr. Litman."
From the "Litman 2025 Summary" master spreadsheet (defendant-produced):
READING NOTE — The "Paid" column below is NGM's bookkeeping, not a record of cash disbursed. Per Richard Litman (04/16/2026): NGM's last actual payment to Litman was the September 27, 2020 paycheck, which covered collections on billings through the 6/15/2020 contract termination date. The $75,000/quarter figures shown for Q1 – Q3 2020 reflect actual W-2 disbursements that bridged the contract cutoff (pre- and through 9/27/2020) and are left unannotated as actual payments. Beginning Q4 2020, the recurring $30,000/quarter entries are NGM's internal summary-sheet construct — $10,000/month deducted as a claimed offset against Litman's private disability insurance benefits — an offset that is not authorized by the Combination Agreement. The $30K/quarter entries are bookkeeping entries, not payments to Litman. The offset trick ran for approximately 29 months (Oct 2020 – Feb 2023) totaling $290,000 wrongly offset. The Q4 2022 Cumulative $694,890 row was materialized by an actual wire ($694,478.67) on 12/29/2022 received at Fidelity 1/3/2023. (Authority: Richard Litman 04/16/2026; see
~/.claude/projects/-Users-awesomefat-Dropbox-LitmanDev-RichieResearch-Claude-Code/memory/project_payment_timeline.md.)
| Quarter | Funds Received | Disbursements | Collected Fees | 20% Due | Claimed Offset / Bookkeeping Entry (Disputed)* | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2020 | $685,940 | $210,030 | $475,911 | $95,182 | $75,000 (actual W-2, pre-cutoff) | $20,182 |
| Q2 2020 | $581,825 | $123,575 | $458,250 | $91,650 | $75,000 (actual W-2, pre-cutoff) | $16,650 |
| Q3 2020 | $504,421 | $228,258 | $276,163 | $55,233 | $75,000 (actual — last real payment 9/27/2020) | ($19,768) |
| Q4 2020 | $618,519 | $175,320 | $443,199 | $88,640 | $30,000 † | $58,640 |
| Q1 2021 | $454,603 | $180,586 | $274,018 | $54,804 | $30,000 † | $24,804 |
| Q2 2021 | $527,515 | $155,765 | $371,750 | $74,350 | $30,000 † | $44,350 |
| Q3 2021 | $1,073,609 | $260,631 | $812,979 | $162,596 | $30,000 † | $132,596 |
| Q4 2021 | $596,710 | $233,471 | $363,239 | $72,648 | $30,000 † | $42,648 |
| Q1 2022 | $526,665 | $257,496 | $269,169 | $53,834 | $30,000 † | $23,834 |
| Q2 2022 | $344,399 | $172,889 | $171,510 | $34,302 | $30,000 † | $4,302 |
| Q3 2022 | $848,702 | $219,786 | $628,917 | $125,783 | $30,000 † | $95,783 |
| Q4 2022 | $2,030,639 | $457,296 | $1,573,344 | $314,669 | $30,000 † | $284,669 |
| Cumulative | $694,890 |
* Column clarified: The rightmost column was previously labeled "Paid." Dollar values are preserved (they are accurate as bookkeeping entries) but the heading no longer implies cash was disbursed to Litman in the post-9/27/2020 rows.
† Disputed $10K/month disability-offset bookkeeping entry. Not an actual payment. 29 months × $10,000 = $290,000 wrongly offset over approximately Oct 2020 – Feb 2023. Disability benefits are not an authorized contractual offset. What is actually owed on this issue alone: the $290,000 wrongly offset + prejudgment interest on each missed $10,000 monthly payment + the unpaid remainder of the 20% allocation beyond the $10,000 base. (Per Richard Litman, 04/16/2026.)
The $694,478.67 wire = an actual payment materialized against NGM's cumulative running balance figure ($694,889.67, within rounding) — the first real cash disbursement to Litman after the 9/27/2020 paycheck. It does not validate the $30K/quarter disability-offset construct that NGM used to reach the cumulative number; Litman's counsel put the true amount then due at $1.25M+ (see Scully quote below).
The $411 discrepancy was a Q3 2020 correction ($2,055 × 20% = $411), wired separately on Jan 12.
"$694,478.67 is based on a spreadsheet the firm recently concocted by guesswork... the sum actually due now exceeds $1,250,000 — not including interest."
NGM claimed the contract allowed deducting "fees and disbursements advanced by NGM" from gross collections before applying 20%. Scully rejected this: the contract said 20% of "collected fees" quarterly, with no right to offset unreimbursed client advances or uncollected receivables. The $600K September KSU trust deposit was explicitly excluded by NGM from the calculation.
Bottom line: The $694K was NGM's unilateral, disputed number after offsets Litman never accepted. Litman's counsel put the true figure at $1.25M+.
| # | Date (CT) | From | To | Bates | Subject Prefix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2023-01-09 16:10 | Litman | Goldberg | C2051472_ND0000263146 / ND0000271128 | "Please resolve:" (ORIGINAL) |
| 2 | 2023-01-09 22:28 | Goldberg | Litman | C2051472_ND0000271129 | "RE:" — rejected wire, "resolved" |
| 3 | 2023-01-10 11:16 | Litman | Goldberg | C2051472_ND0000271130 | "Re:" — Bob Scully is counsel |
| 4 | 2023-01-10 18:05 | Goldberg | Litman | C2051472_ND0000271135 | "RE:" — Q3/Q4 2022 PALs, $520K KSU in trust, $2,055 discrepancy |
| 5 | 2023-01-11 00:51 | Litman | Goldberg | C2051472_ND0000271136 | "Re:" — demands MetLife trust ledger, KSU invoices, KFU subsidiary ledger |
| 6 | 2023-01-11 20:08 | Goldberg | Litman | C2051472_ND0000216104 / ND0000271138 | "RE:" — Q3/Q4 2022 Client Ledger + Client Accounting Ledger reports |
| 7 | 2023-01-12 17:19 | Goldberg | Litman | C2051472_ND0000271139 | "RE:" — KSU Trust Listing + remaining Quarterly Client Ledgers back to 2020 |
| 8 | 2023-01-13 06:04 | Litman | Goldberg | C2051472_ND0000271140 | "Re:" — demands reports back to 2020; MetLife trust unresolved |
| 9 | 2023-01-16 06:56 | Goldberg | Litman | C2051472_ND0000271146 | "RE:" — corrected Dec 2022 summary, remainder of Client Accounting Ledgers |
| 10 | 2023-01-16 10:15 | Litman | Goldberg | C2051472_ND0000271148 | "Re:" — wants per-matter detail on inventors, invention, status |
| 11 | 2025-07-22 15:13 | Litman | Daniel Litman (litmantsi@gmail.com) | C2051472_ND0000183042 | "Fwd: Please resolve:" — forwarded to nephew |
| 12 | 2025-07-22 15:13 | Litman | Daniel Litman (litmantsi@gmail.com) | C2051472_ND0000264034 | "Fwd:" — duplicate of #11 (different discovery folder) |
17 attachments on the Jan 12 message alone: 11 quarterly Client Ledger PDFs (1Q2020 through 2Q2022), KSU Client Trust Listing 01122022.pdf, plus 6 image files (signatures/logos).
On the same day the lawsuits were filed (July 21-22, 2025), Litman forwarded this entire thread to nephew Daniel Litman (litmantsi@gmail.com) at 3:13 PM CT. The forward was sent from rlitman@nathlaw.com — proving that email account was still functional on July 22 despite the claimed July 18 elimination (corroborates Finding #106). The forward included the full Jan 2023 exchange as embedded quoted text, preserving the complete Goldberg admission trail.
evidence/ocr_results_archive_2020/652c7860ac79af98acd3f61e52433889.txtoutput/sent_items_hits/ND263146_Please_resolve_69447867_Wire_Transfer_-_RE_Richard_C_Litman.txtoutput/sent_items_hits/ND264034_Fwd_Please_resolve_69447867_Wire_Transfer_-_RE_Richard_C_Lit.txtevidence/gmail_downloads/attachments/Litman 2025 Summary_December_.xlsxevidence/gmail_downloads_account2/attachments/Jul - Sep 2022 418_Client WIP, Billing and Collection Summary[218688].pdfevidence/gmail_downloads_account2/attachments/Status of Cases with Payments Received in September 2022.docxoutput/EMAIL_METADATA_ND0002.csv (14 Bates-stamped messages in thread)Heba K. Carter, Esq. (hcarter@gcpc.com) is co-counsel at General Counsel, P.C. — Merritt Green's firm, which represented NGM in the arbitration. She was on the December 2022 Green letter thread.
Uncle's theory: Carter's June 2025 calculation may follow the same "underwater" playbook — subtracting money owed + soft costs + wrongful offsets before calculating Litman's share. This would be the same method Green articulated in December 2022, now applied to the 2023-2025 period.
Status: No standalone "Heba Carter calculation" document has been located in the evidence corpus. The June 2025 financial exchanges are between Litman and Goldberg directly (the June 11-16, 2025 email threads documented in the financial images). If Carter prepared an underlying calculation, it may be in Goldberg's files and subject to discovery demand.
| Metric | Litman's Estimate | Verified (22-patent sample) |
|---|---|---|
| Uses per file wrapper | 10–15 | 23–51 (avg 31.9) |
| 905 patents × uses | 9,050–13,575 | 28,870 |
| 467 KFU patents (2024) × uses | 4,670–7,005 | 14,897 |
Litman's estimate is materially conservative. The actual count is more than double.
High-confidence (15.2 avg/wrapper) — document explicitly names Litman as attorney: - Filing Receipt (1.2 per wrapper) - Notice of Allowance (1.1) - Issued Patent / eGrant (1.0) - eGrant Notification (1.0) - Issue Notification (1.0) - Track One Grant (1.0) - Non-Final / Final Rejection Office Actions - Restriction Requirements - Power of Attorney - IFEE / PTOL-85B - Transmittal Letters - Amendment filings
Moderate-confidence (16.7 avg/wrapper) — routed under CN-37833: - EFS Acknowledgment Receipts (4.5 per wrapper — every filing generates one) - Examiner reference lists - Specifications, Claims, Remarks filed under CN-37833 - IDS forms, Oath/Declarations
| Category | Count | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| 905 patents × 32 IFW uses | 28,870 | Verified IFW document count |
| + 245 trademark dockets (est. 5 uses each) | 1,225 | Trademark Name Use Memo |
| + 12 TTAB proceedings (est. 10 uses each) | 120 | Finding #58 |
| + Assignment correspondent listings | 3 confirmed | Assignment screenshots |
| + @4patent.com alias emails | 205,597 | Finding #46 |
| Conservative total (IFW + trademark only) | ~30,215 |
| Application | Date Recorded | Correspondent | Signatory |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18/241,394 | Oct 2, 2023 | "NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" | Goldberg |
| 18/383,448 | Oct 29, 2023 | "RICHARD C. LITMAN NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" | Goldberg |
| 18/392,663 | Dec 21, 2023 | "RICHARD C. LITMAN NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER" | Goldberg |
| 18/242,465 | Apr 25, 2024 | "JOSHUA GOLDBERG" | Goldberg |
| Period | Correspondent | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 2020 – Jan 2024 | Firm name only | 10 |
| Oct–Dec 2023 | "RICHARD C. LITMAN" | 2 |
| Feb 2024 – Mar 2025 | "JOSHUA GOLDBERG" | 7 |
Both "RICHARD C. LITMAN" entries are post-arbitration (6/14/2023), both KFU, both signed by Goldberg. On App 18/383,448, Goldberg's own email (jgoldberg@nathlaw.com) appears as the correspondence email, yet Litman's name leads the correspondent field — proving deliberate choice, not system default.
Each assignment is a separate § 51 use, distinct from Line 74 and distinct from IFW documents.
The Line 74 switchover (Jan 14-21, 2025) affected only issued patent front pages. The underlying infrastructure continued using Litman's name:
| Category | Last Documented Date | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Patent Line 74 (issued patents) | Jan 14, 2025 | POST_20250114_NGM_PATENTS.csv |
| USPTO sworn trademark declaration | Jul 2, 2025 | TRADEMARK_NAME_USE_MEMO.md |
| KSU payment email CC to rlitman@ | Jul 2025 | GOULD_HURLEY_EMAIL_CORRESPONDENCE.md |
| Client signature block name use | Jul 2025 | Same |
| kfu@4patent.com alias active | Jul 7, 2025 | RENUMBERED_CLIENTS_VS_ALIASES_CROSSREF.md |
| KNPC App 19277913 filed under CN-37833 | Jul 23, 2025 | USPTO_BIBLIO_FULL_AUDIT.md |
| USPTO BHC MANAGEMENT notice to Litman | Aug 20, 2025 | BHC_MANAGEMENT_POST_ELIMINATION_EXHIBIT.md |
| USPTO trademark CC to rlitman@ | Aug 26, 2025 | Finding #40 |
| ksu@4patent.com alias active | Oct 20, 2025 | RENUMBERED_CLIENTS_VS_ALIASES_CROSSREF.md |
| USPTO trademark emails to rlitman@ | Jan 30, 2026 | TRADEMARK_NAME_USE_MEMO.md |
| litman@4patent.com alias active | Feb 2, 2026 | RENUMBERED_CLIENTS_VS_ALIASES_CROSSREF.md |
Uncle's specific theory: when the USPTO issues an office action rejecting a patent application with Litman's name on the correspondence address, and Goldberg sends a cover letter to KFU telling them "it will cost money" to respond — that is a use of Litman's name for the purpose of trade. The client sees Litman's name on the official rejection and associates the firm with Litman's reputation. This reinforces the client relationship and reduces resistance to paying.
Each file wrapper may contain 10-15 such client-facing cover letter moments (initial filing, restriction requirement, first office action, response, second office action, response, notice of allowance, issue fee, grant notification, maintenance fee notices).
For 467 KFU patents issued in 2024 alone: 4,670-7,005 client-facing interactions where Litman's name on the official document reinforced KFU's willingness to pay.
Litman himself identified this in his Feb 10, 2026 letter to Goldberg's counsel (Gould):
"the rlitman@nathlaw.com email account contains evidence bearing on liability — for example, use of my name in a signature block in a July 2025 email to a client regarding a USPTO trademark filing; Defendant copying rlitman@nathlaw.com in July 2025 emails with KSU concerning payment issues."
Both occurred AFTER the July 18, 2025 email elimination — proving Goldberg continued using Litman's name identity even while cutting off his access to see it.
Uncle identifies two parallel accounting obligations:
Each use of Litman's identity in connection with offering legal services is an actionable § 51 use: - 905 patents × 32 IFW uses = 28,870 individual uses (patent prosecution) - 245 trademark dockets with additional uses - 205,597 @4patent.com alias emails through Litman's domain - Ongoing into 2026 via CN-37833, trademark records, and email aliases
No requirement for "mass publication" — each individual correspondence, filing receipt, office action, or cover letter is a separate use for the purposes of trade.
The money generated by those name uses: - $18.4M total fees collected under Litman's name (2020-2025) - $2.95M shortfall (20% owed vs. actually paid) - $9.89M KFU unallocated / $1.98M KFU unpaid 20% - $805K KSU uncredited 20% - $54K KISR uncredited 20% - $694K wire = NGM's disputed net after offsets; Scully put true amount at $1.25M+
The two accounting tracks converge: each name use was made for the purpose of generating the fees that Goldberg then diverted.
This memo was prepared from evidence in the litigation record. All dollar amounts are from defendant-produced documents or Litman's contemporaneous records.