CASE UPDATES ON
HUBBUCH v. HELBRAUN & LEVEY LLP, ET AL
(EDNY - 1:25-cv-00717)
NEW!! April 28, 2025
Both Defendants and Counsel Are Flailing
Since my last update, Helbraun & Levey’s defense strategy has gone from bad to catastrophic.
After Judge Pamela Chen personally intervened in mid-February to order briefing on Rivkin Radler’s blatantly improper Rule 11 motion (described in my February 23 update), the situation has only worsened—for both defense firms representing Helbraun & Levey and their co-defendant Gleichenhaus, Marchese & Weishaar PC of Buffalo.
1. Rivkin Radler Facing Rule 11 Sanctions
Following their improper February 20, 2025 Rule 11 filing—filed just 21 hours after serving me their so-called "safe harbor" letter, in violation of the mandatory 21-day waiting period—I formally moved for Rule 11 sanctions against defense attorneys David Wilck and William Schleifer.
In my motion, I:
Demanded $75,000 in sanctions per attorney;
Meticulously documented their deliberate violation of procedural law; and
Highlighted how Judge Chen’s immediate intervention showed the seriousness of their misconduct.
In response, Wilck and Schleifer tried to excuse their violation — but their arguments were weak, legally unsupported, and largely relied on irrelevant rhetoric.
Meanwhile, I requested leave to file a short, two-page sur-reply—and Judge Chen not only granted my request but expanded it to allow five pages, signaling that she welcomed further development of the issues.
In my sur-reply, I:
Exposed Wilck and Schleifer’s misleading statements to the Court;
Reinforced the procedural violation clearly and powerfully; and
Directly rebutted their defenses without distraction.
It is extremely rare for any litigant—let alone a pro se litigant—to be granted sur-reply briefing in federal court, especially at five pages instead of two. This shows that Judge Chen is taking these issues very seriously and is carefully weighing the arguments on both sides.
2. GMW PC’s Entire Motion Strategy Implodes
At the same time, the other defendants — Gleichenhaus, Marchese & Weishaar P.C. and its partner Scott Bogucki — suffered a collapse of their own.
On March 24, 2025, counsel for GMW PC and Bogucki -- Matthew Flanagan of Marshall Dennehy -- filed a letter requesting permission to move to dismiss, claiming the Court should "abstain" in favor of my then-pending state court case.
But on the very same day, I voluntarily discontinued the state court case, completely eliminating their entire basis for abstention.
Instead of granting GMW PC’s request, Judge Chen denied it and converted it into an expedited motion to dismiss without the usual pre-motion conference — another clear signal of skepticism toward their procedural maneuvering.
I immediately filed a strong opposition, showing that:
The state case had already been discontinued and dismissed;
GMW PC’s abstention argument was now moot;
Their filing ignored the core allegations of fraud and racketeering that were properly before the federal court.
GMW PC’s reply failed to seriously address my arguments -- meaning that Flanagan and Marshall Dennehy PC now stand exposed alongside Rivkin Radler as another failing part of the defense of both the defendant law firms.
3. Defenses Now in Disarray
As of this writing, Helbraun & Levey find themselves boxed in:
One defense team (Rivkin Radler) facing a fully briefed Rule 11 sanctions motion that could lead to significant financial and professional penalties;
Another defense team (Marshall Dennehy PC) stranded with a dismissal motion based on facts that no longer exist;
No coherent litigation strategy left except procedural scrambling and weak finger-pointing.
Meanwhile, Judge Chen continues to supervise the case with exceptional care, fairness, and attention to detail, ensuring that every issue is properly examined under the law.
Where Things Stand Now
At the time of this update:
Judge Chen has not yet ruled on either the Rule 11 sanctions motion or the expedited motions to dismiss;
All briefing deadlines have passed;
I have made no procedural missteps;
Judicial scrutiny remains extremely high over the defense of both Helbraun & Levey and GMW PC.
If and when sanctions are imposed — or the motions to dismiss are denied — the legal position of both firms could collapse entirely.
Final Thought:
If Helbraun & Levey’s own lawyers cannot even follow basic federal rules — or mount a coherent defense without collapsing procedurally — how can they possibly be trusted to represent restaurant owners, small businesses, or anyone else?
More updates coming soon.
PREVIOUS UPDATE:
February 23, 2025
Did Helbraun & Levey’s lawyers just lose this case before it even started?
That’s the question now looming after a stunning legal blunder on February 20, 2025, by Helbraun & Levey’s defense attorneys, DAVID WILCK and WILLIAM SCHLEIFER of insurance defense firm RIVKIN RADLER LLP. In a highly unusual move, Judge Pamela Chen personally stepped in—bypassing the magistrate judge—and issued orders in record time calling out their blatant procedural violation.
Even more striking, Judge Chen waited less than 24 hours after the filing to issue her orders--the second of which was handed out well after hours—at 6:15 p.m. on a Friday. Judges typically handle procedural matters during normal court hours, so this decision to rule early on a Friday evening suggests the situation warranted an immediate response.
What Happened?
Wilck and Schleifer filed a procedurally improper Rule 11 sanctions motion just 21 hours after serving it—despite federal law requiring a mandatory 21-day waiting period. This basic and unambiguous procedural violation led Judge Chen to issue an order directing them to justify their actions.
Instead of summarily striking their motion, as she could have easily done, Judge Chen instead required full briefing—allowing the issue to be further examined. The fact that she is requiring briefing on an issue as clear-cut as this suggests she wants the matter fully addressed before making a decision.
Why This Matters
Federal judges do not typically intervene in procedural disputes this quickly—especially when a magistrate judge is assigned to handle pretrial matters. The fact that Judge Chen chose to personally oversee this issue rather than defer to Magistrate Judge Taryn Merkl suggests that she considered the matter important enough to handle directly.
At a bare minimum, this means the court is taking the situation very seriously, which raises significant concerns for Helbraun & Levey because the firm is relying on these same attorneys to protect them. But instead of mounting a competent defense, Wilck and Schleifer have now drawn heightened judicial scrutiny that could even lead to personal sanctions against them.
A Conflict of Interest That Cannot Be Ignored
Adding to Helbraun & Levey’s troubles, Wilck and Schleifer are not even part of their firm—they are panel counsel hired by the firm’s malpractice insurer. This creates a major problem:
If Wilck and Schleifer now push to settle, is it because it’s in Helbraun & Levey’s best interest—or because they personally want to avoid sanctions?
If they keep fighting, is it because they believe in the case, or because withdrawing would be professionally humiliating?
How can Helbraun & Levey trust their defense team when those attorneys are now trying to save themselves?
This is now a clear and seemingly unresolvable conflict of interest. The ability of Wilck or Schleifer to properly defend Helbraun & Levey has been compromised, and their continued involvement in this case is ethically questionable at best.
What Happens Next?
Wilck and Schleifer are now in a no-win situation with just three options:
Defend the indefensible – If they try to justify their Rule 11 violation, they will be arguing against an explicit federal rule that every competent litigator understands;
Withdraw their motion – A clear acknowledgement that their filing was improper, further damaging their credibility; or
Withdraw from the case entirely – A clear signal that their continued representation is untenable.
Regardless of which option they choose, one thing is now clear: Judge Chen is treating this case with close scrutiny. If she ultimately grants Rule 11 sanctions, it would be a humiliating rebuke of their conduct with potential professional consequences for both attorneys.
If H&L Can’t Even Hire Competent Lawyers
to Defend Them, Why Should Anyone
Want to Hire H&L?
This entire episode raises an obvious question for any restaurant owners or small businesses considering hiring Helbraun & Levey for legal representation—if they can’t even find competent attorneys to defend themselves, how can they be trusted to represent anyone else?
NOTE: All information in this post is sourced from public court records
and intended for educational purposes only.