MEMORANDUM & ORDER The Government Employees Insurance Company brought this action together with certain related companies (collectively, “GEICO”). GEICO alleges that it has been the target of a prolific insurance-fraud scheme carried out by the defendants. The list of defendants includes VVX, Inc., a medical device supplier; VVX’s owner, Yefim Klikshteyn; and certain medical clinics and doctors. GEICO contends that the defendants have submitted a very large (and growing) number of bills for durable medical equipment that was medically unnecessary or that the defendants did not actually provide at all. GEICO seeks a declaratory judgment establishing, among other things, that it is not obligated to pay the claims submitted by the defendants. Compl. 154, ECF No. 1. In addition to seeking the declaratory judgment, the complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment.1 GEICO moves now for injunctive relief pending the disposition of this action — specifically, an order (1) staying “all collection lawsuits pending in the state courts of New York between any of the Plaintiffs and Defendant VVX seeking No-Fault insurance benefits” and (2) enjoining VVX and anyone acting on its behalf from “commencing any lawsuit in the state courts of New York or arbitration before the American Arbitration Association against GEICO seeking No-Fault insurance benefits.” Pl. Proposed Order Granting Inj. 1-2, ECF No. 58-13.2 For the following reasons, I deny the request to stay the state-court cases that are currently pending. I grant, however, the request for an injunction against prospective collection actions by VVX or Klikshteyn against GEICO, whether in state court or arbitrations. I. Background A. Factual Background GEICO has submitted substantial evidence in support of its claim of fraud. Among other things, its outside counsel has furnished a sworn declaration marshaling the evidence that has been adduced so far in discovery. See Decl. of Michael Vanunu (“Vanunu Decl.”) 15-24, ECF No. 58-2. That affidavit also summarizes the landscape of state-court litigation that GEICO is asking to stay. Id 10. GEICO also relies on submissions from a medical expert, Dr. James Dillard, and certified orthotist, Bradley Smith, who identified various irregularities in the treatment of GEICO’s insureds. See Decl. of James Dillard (“Dillard Decl.”), ECF No. 58-4; Decl. of Bradley Smith (“Smith Decl.”), ECF No. 58-5. GEICO supplements these opinions with affidavits from two doctors who were previously defendants here; both now deny having signed certain prescriptions submitted by VVX that purport to bear their signatures. Aff. of Dr. Yang Zhi Gang (“Gang Aff.”)
9-12, ECF No. 58-6; Aff. of Dr. Haiyin Hua (“Hua Aff.”)
