Federal Court Update: Motion to Dismiss Filed — Notice of Fraud on the Court Submitted

I had to file a Notice of Fraud on the Court after Fisher Phillips submitted their Motion to Dismiss in the federal case.

Here is what is happening.

Fisher Phillips Files Motion to Dismiss

Fisher Phillips — representing AMJ Services LLC and Steven S. Dickert (Trustee of Basil Management Trust) — has now formally filed their Motion to Dismiss in the U.S. District Court.

The motion seeks multiple forms of relief:

• Dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety.

• Alternatively, striking portions of the Complaint.

• Alternatively, compelling arbitration.

In their briefing, they argue:

• Lack of standing.

• Failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b).

• That alter ego and successor liability are not standalone claims.

• That the case should be narrowed back to arbitration.

Literally throwing the kitchen sink at me. You can read it below.

The motion is supported by sworn declarations, including one from the Trustee/CFO and one from counsel, submitted under penalty of perjury.

The core defense strategy is clear:

Reframe this case as a simple wage dispute and confine it to arbitration, while challenging the structural and fraud-based claims at the pleading stage.

The Arbitration Agreement Issue

The arbitration agreement is central to their motion to compel.

However, the version submitted in support of the Motion to Dismiss differs from the version previously filed in federal court and in the related arbitration proceedings.

Specifically, the name appearing in the signature block of the agreement differs from the originally filed version.

The document was submitted as a “true and correct copy” under penalty of perjury.

Because the arbitration agreement is the foundation of their motion to compel, and because all federal filings are certified under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1746, this discrepancy could not be ignored.

Notice of Fraud on the Court Filed

As a result, I filed a formal Notice of Fraud on the Court.

This notice does not argue the entire case.

It preserves a record issue.

It alerts the Court to:

• The discrepancy in the arbitration agreement.

• Sworn testimony that materially mischaracterizes the scope and effect of a prior Court order.

• The importance of record integrity in federal proceedings.

“Fraud on the court” is not a rhetorical phrase. It is a legal doctrine that addresses conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Federal courts rely on:

• Authentic exhibits.

• Accurate certifications.

• Sworn declarations.

• Candor regarding prior rulings.

When an exhibit central to a motion differs from the version previously filed in the Court’s own record, and is submitted as a true and correct copy — that issue must be formally preserved.

That is what the Notice does.

The Broader Context

This Motion to Dismiss is not routine.

It locks in the defense’s structural position under oath.

It attempts to narrow the case before discovery.

It relies heavily on arbitration enforcement.

And it comes at the same time multiple procedural issues are unfolding in the case.

This is no longer informal argument.

It is sworn federal record.

What Happens Next

The Court will:

• Review the Motion to Dismiss.

• Review the Notice of Fraud on the Court.

• Evaluate the integrity of the record.

• Determine whether dismissal, arbitration, or further proceedings are appropriate.

If you or I submitted a document to federal court that differed from a previously filed version, and certified it under penalty of perjury as a “true and correct copy” — can you imagine what would happen? We would be facing immediate scrutiny. There could be Rule 11 sanctions, monetary penalties, motions to strike, credibility findings against us, and potentially referral for disciplinary review. Federal court is built on the integrity of sworn filings. Judges rely on attorneys’ certifications as representations of fact. If an ordinary litigant altered a contract central to a motion and filed it without explanation, the consequences would be swift and severe. That is why record accuracy is not a technicality, it is foundational to the judicial process.

My Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is forthcoming.

I will provide another update once the Court issues rulings on the extension matters and the fraud-on-the-court issue.

More to come.