Source: evidence/aaa_lawsuit_package_20250728/
Date: 2026-04-10
Scope: Demand Letters 5–7, State Complaint (Index 524343/2025), Second Amended Complaint (10/03/2025), 2022 Arbitration Demand, June 14, 2023 Arbitration Award, and the three July 2025 lawyer letters.
Three successive demand letters trace a four-week escalation from informal complaint to filed litigation.
Responds to NGM's COBRA notice purporting to terminate benefits 6/30/2025.
Responds to Carter's 6/26/2025 correspondence reasserting the 6/15/2025 termination date.
What the letters uniformly establish:
† Includes $290,000 in MetLife long-term-disability offset entries that the arbitrator ruled were improper deductions by NGM. Litman did not receive that $290,000 as cash; it was a paper-offset bookkeeping construct. Adjusted figures (subtracting the $290K offset from "Paid" and adding it to the outstanding balance) are shown in the corresponding reading note. See
output/LITMAN_SUMMARY_DISABILITY_OFFSET_EXTRACT_20260416.mdandoutput/RCL_VARIANCE_RECONCILIATION_2020_ANALYSIS_20260416.mdfor the primary-ledger reconciliation. - Royalty characterization locked in. The Arbitrator characterized the 20% as a royalty — "payment made in exchange for a privilege, in this case the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base brought by Litman to NGM." This directly supports the unjust enrichment and conversion theories and destroys any attempt to recast the 20% as wages/severance. - Q3/Q4 2022 collection claim (DL6/7 only). Litman personally collected on past-due invoices at Merrick Green's request (since deceased), deposited to NGM's BOA trust account; NGM now mischaracterizes those as "retainers for future work." Litman characterizes this as separately actionable (not res judicata because the Award "did not address this post-collection misconduct"). - Pre-Disability Trust Ledger demand covering April 16, 2017 – June 15, 2020 (the pre-SOL period). - Indemnification under Section 4 of the Amendment — NGM agreed to pay all legal expenses to enforce Litman's rights. - Deadlines demanded: Written response Fri. June 27, 2025 5:00pm PT; $1,000,000 good-faith wire by Tue. July 1, 2025; written COBRA rescission; formal reinstatement through 6/30/2027. None were met.
Single defendant: Joshua B. Goldberg individually (not NGM). Nine counts. Pro se, ~171 pages with exhibits.
Theory: Personal liability for Goldberg's direction of the fraudulent accounting and misappropriation scheme — explicitly styled as a personal-tort case, not a contract case against the firm. Jurisdiction premised on both parties being Kings County residents (Goldberg "runs [NGM] remotely out of Brooklyn, NY").
Nine counts: 1. Common Law Unfair Competition (misappropriation of name, goodwill, labor) 2. N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 (name-use, 5 years post-retroactive-termination + "Retired" label) 3. Defamation – Libel Per Se ("PATENT ATTORNEY – Retired" designation) 4. Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 5. Unjust Enrichment / Quantum Meruit 6. Constructive Trust 7. Equitable Accounting 8. Prima Facie Tort 9. N.Y.C. Human Rights Law (disability discrimination)
Damages pleaded: Not less than $10,000,000 compensatory + punitives.
22 exhibits (A–R) including: accounting discrepancy (Exh. A), 6/26/25 system report (Exh. B), NathLaw.com "Retired" screenshot (Exh. C), 685 originated clients list (Exh. I), $1,437,568 wire (Exh. J), Goldberg "status quo until Jerry improves" emails (Exh. K), NGM March 2021 position + payment terms email (Exh. L), KSU patent filing email (Exh. O), January 2025 numbers email (Exh. P), COBRA notice (Exh. Q), Trademark Assignment Agreement (Exh. R).
Major strategic narrowing — from 9 counts to 5, dropping the defamation, tortious interference, prima facie tort, and NYCHRL counts. This aligns with Judge Maslow's 12/05/2025 oral ruling retaining only Count V (§§ 50–51).
SAC Counts: 1. Equitable Accounting 2. Constructive Trust 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 4. Unjust Enrichment 5. Misappropriation of Name & Likeness (Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51)
New factual framing introduced in SAC (not in original): - Two-accounting-system theory. Goldberg transitioned the firm "Immediately upon paying the Award" to a new accounting system ("PC Law" → "Soluno") under his personal direction. This system "erased or misclassified revenues," hid revenues as "retainers," wrote off receivables, and excluded at least one trust account from system reports. This is consistent with Finding #69 ("retainer" mischaracterization) and expands it — SAC alleges a third, undisclosed trust account. - "Vested property rights as of June 15, 2020" framing — pitches the 20% as vested, not contractual, to survive a contract/res-judicata defense. - Relief demands a neutral court-appointed CPA paid by Defendant, complete PC Law + Soluno data exports, matter-by-matter reconciliation, and analysis of all payments labeled "retainers" from fixed-fee clients.
Key differences State Complaint vs. SAC:
| Item | Original (7/21/25) | SAC (10/3/25) |
|---|---|---|
| Counts | 9 | 5 |
| Defamation/"Retired" | Count III standalone | Subsumed into §§ 50-51 (Count V) |
| NYCHRL disability | Count IX | Dropped |
| Core theory | Fraud + misappropriation | Equitable accounting + vested-rights |
| Accounting theory | $16.2M single discrepancy | Two-system erasure + third trust account |
| Damages ask | $10M+ pleaded | Accounting-driven, unquantified |
Federal complaint (EDNY 1:25-cv-04048, filed same day 7/21/2025) contained: Defamation–Libel Per Se, False Endorsement under Lanham Act § 43(a), §§ 50–51, NYCHRL disability discrimination, misappropriation. The state complaint carried the state-law claims; federal complaint carried the Lanham Act hook. Federal case voluntarily dismissed (per Finding #22).
The two figures refer to the same underlying dispute — two slightly different framings:
Critical reconciliation with Finding #49: The 6/26/2025 Kren report also contains a line showing "Payments $2,403,125.66" and "Difference ($673.80)" — meaning NGM was internally reconciling against the $2.4M figure already validated in Finding #49. This is independent confirmation that $2,403,125.66 is NGM's own accounting anchor, not just Litman's reconstruction. The Kren report is almost certainly the source document being sought in Open Gap #23.
Why it matters legally: Both the BOA 8777 report ($27,779,071.76 receipts) and the Kren workup bear NGM's own system headers and are represented as system-generated. The existence of two inconsistent firm-produced reports purporting to describe the same bank account over the same period is the core of the fraud allegation. Under the SAC's two-system theory (PC Law vs. Soluno), this is not an arithmetic error — it is evidence of deliberate fabrication.
The phrase comes directly from Arbitration Award p. 8: "They discussed how Litman's termination would be treated as if Mr. Litman 'had died.' Were this the case, his estate would be paid by...deferred money compensation equal to twenty percent (20%) of the Revenue (regardless of when received by NGM)..."
Litman's argument: - Goldberg successfully argued in arbitration that disability = death = contract "treated as terminated" 6/15/2020. - The Arbitrator accepted this and started the 5-year clock on 6/15/2020. - BUT the contractual "death" treatment carries a specific obligation: deferred 20% compensation on Revenue "regardless of when received by NGM" — and the 5-year period "can optionally be extended one or two years upon mutual agreement of all parties." - Goldberg cannot have the benefit of the death treatment (terminated employment, no benefits obligation) without its burden (continued royalty on all revenue, even post-5-year tail). - The 7/22/2025 letter asks for a meeting with Goldberg (7/24 or 7/25 at 10am EST) or a $1M good-faith payment; failure of both = continued litigation.
This is the judicial estoppel hinge for MSJ Point I — Goldberg is locked into his own arbitration position.
Award (4 paragraphs): 1. Combination Agreement and Amendment modified by conduct to address Litman's disability; 5-year period commenced June 15, 2020. 2. NGM breached by failing to pay sums due when due. 3. Amounts brought current except statutory interest on the $10,000/month MetLife offsets wrongfully deducted October 2020 – March 2023 (aggregate $290,000) — interest at legal rate under Va. Code § 8.01-382. 4. All other claims dismissed.
Critical findings supporting the current case: - Goldberg and Meyer personally dismissed from contract liability (not parties to the contract). This is the ruling that forced Litman's current case to be personal torts only, not contract. - NGM "created as the alter ego for its partners." Direct quote from the Award — supports veil-piercing on Count V as applied by Judge Maslow (cf. Turane v. MGN, LLC). - Fiduciary duty/conversion/accounting counts dismissed — Arbitrator found contract law provided adequate remedy. This is why the SAC reframes as vested property rights (not contractual duties). - Expert testimony: Stuart Rosenberg (NGM's expert) found Nath's fee calculation method "reasonable" but expressly did NOT opine on the MetLife offset — Arbitrator ruled the offset improper. - Life insurance claim dismissed — Litman not entitled to partner-level life insurance.
The original Demand is a richly-commented working draft (Litman's annotations in margin). Items relevant beyond what's already in the case files:
litman@4patent.com and rlitman@litmanlaw.com. Litman's handwritten comment cross-references this with the 2025 email retaliation. This is a contractually protected email right — reinforcing Finding #23 (email elimination) as a direct breach of Amendment § 3, not merely retaliation.litman@4patent.com and rlitman@litmanlaw.com are contractually guaranteed to Litman. Recontextualizes the July 18, 2025 email elimination (Finding #23) as a breach of a specific express contractual right, not mere retaliation.