UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-10993 

Plaintiff, District Judge Victoria A. Roberts 

vs. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

 

UNIVERSAL REHAB SERVICES, INC., 

PHYSIOFLEX, P.L.L.C., 

SUMMIT MEDICAL GROUP, P.L.L.C., 

DAVID JANKOWSKI, D.O., and 

AHMAD T. ABULABON, P.T., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER PERMITTING THE FEBRUARY 23, 2017 DEPOSITION OF 

INTERESTED PARTY MICHAEL ANGELO TO GO FORWARD 

(DEs 156, 161, DE 172 and DE 177)

A. This case involves one Plaintiff, two groups of Defendants, and various 

other movants and interested parties. 

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff sets forth various causes of action - common law 

fraud, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment - 

as to Defendants Universal Rehab Services, PhysioFlex and Abulabon (“the 

Universal Defendants”) and/or Defendants Summit Medical Group and Jankowski 

(“the Summit Defendants”). (DE 107.) Each of these groups of Defendants has 

filed counterclaims. (DE 45, DE 116.) 

The motion practice in this case has been plentiful. Thus, at the outset, it is 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 178 Filed 02/22/17 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 6901
important to note Judge Roberts’s June 3, 2016 order, which states, in part: “The 

parties are not to file any more motions without leave of Court. If a party finds it 

necessary to file a motion, that party must file a letter addressed to the Court, not 

more than one page, outlining the dispute and the attempts to resolve it. Opposing 

counsel can file a response to the letter, not more than one page.” (DE 100.) 

Relatedly, Judge Roberts’s December 20, 2016 order repeated this warning: “The 

parties are not allowed to file any other motions without leave of Court.” (DE 

146.)1

 

B. At this time, there are a multitude of motions and requests before this 

Court. 

In late January 2017, Judge Roberts referred this case to me for “all 

non-dispositive pretrial proceedings,” and also for a report and recommendation on 

the pending motion to dismiss (DE 123). This includes any “notices” filed by the 

parties from January 10, 2017 forward. (See DE 165, DE 166.) 

Currently before the Court are several formal motions, most of which have 

been noticed for a February 27, 2017 hearing. (DEs 123, 135,2

 159, 171 and 175; 

see also DE 174.) In addition, there are eight notices by State Farm seeking leave 

 

1 This practice has led to several rulings by this Court outside of formal motion 

practice. (See, i.e., DEs 101 & 103, DEs 124 & 125, DEs 149 & 150 and DEs 148 

& 147; see also DEs 145 & 146.) 

2 The motion to quash was filed by non-parties Pacific Marketing and Garden State 

Media. (DE 135.)

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 178 Filed 02/22/17 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 6902
to file various motions (see DEs 148, 149, 151,3

 152, 153, 154, 155, 160) and the 

Universal Defendants’ notice concerning the Vonage subpoena (DE 158), none of 

which has been scheduled for discussion with the Court. 

C. The Instant Emergency Request Concerns the Deposition of Interested 

Party Michael Angelo. 

 

Michael Angelo is not a party to this case. Still, in another motion currently 

pending before this Court, Plaintiff State Farm contends that Defendant Jankowski 

formed Defendant Summit with help from Angelo, “the Owner of the Marketing 

Entities [Pacific Marketing and Garden State Media] And 1-800-US-LAWYER, to 

Purportedly Evaluate Patients Solicited by Runners Employed by 

1-800-USLAWYER.” (DE 140 at 13-14.)4

 

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff State Farm informed this Court that it had filed 

- in the S.D.N.Y. (Case No. 17 Misc 13) - a “motion for rule to show cause or, 

alternatively to compel Michael Angelo and the Angelo entities to comply with 

lawfully issued subpoenas.” (DE 156.) On January 20, 2017, the Universal and 

Summit Defendants file a joint notice, in which the Universal Defendants stated:

 

3 Plaintiff’s January 13, 2017 notice concerns a subpoena allegedly issued to 

non-party Mike Mashhour. (DE 151.) 

4 On or about May 13, 2016, Plaintiff State Farm issued to Michael Angelo a 

subpoena to produce documents (DE 140-2 at 1-29). On or about July 22, 2016, 

Plaintiff State Farm issued to Michael Angelo a subpoena to give testimony at an 

August 31, 2016 deposition (DE 140-14.) 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 178 Filed 02/22/17 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 6903
4 

This filing is a copy of a motion that State Farm apparently filed 

in New York, requesting an order compelling Michael Angelo to attend 

a deposition. Defendants have already addressed the fact that State 

Farm has zero evidence that Michael Angelo, or anyone else, engaged 

in any unlawful conduct as part of a “scheme” to enrich the Defendants 

at the agonizingly slow pace of approximately 1 patient referral every 

two months. 

Defendants here note that it is their position that State Farm 

violated this Court’s order that the parties were not to file any motions 

in this case without first seeking leave of the Court. Instead State 

Farm instated a separate action in New York, to which the Defendants 

are not parties, demanding that Michael Angelo sit for a deposition that 

will not lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence in support of 

State Farm’s claims. State Farm already knows this based on the 

massive amount of discovery it has already undertaken; however, State 

Farm is desperate to extend its fishing license to delay Defendants’ 

filing of their Rule 56 motions which will likely dispose of State 

Farm’s meritless accusations. 

(DE 161 at 3 (emphases added) (internal footnote omitted).) 

Thereafter, on February 7, 2017, Judge Engelmayer of the S.D.N.Y. entered an 

order which, among other things, required Angelo to appear for a deposition on 

February 23, 2017 in New York. (DE 172-1.) Plaintiff State Farm promptly 

informed this Court of the ruling. (DE 172.) 

On February 17, 2017, counsel for the Universal Defendants requested an 

emergency scheduling conference regarding the deposition scheduled for February 

23, 2017. On February 21, 2017, I noticed a telephone status conference for 

February 22, 2017. (DE 176.) That same day, attorney Justin Haas electronically 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 178 Filed 02/22/17 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 6904
5 

filed Michael Angelo’s declaration. (DE 177.) 

D. Order 

On the date set for hearing, eight attorneys appeared by telephone.5

 Having 

considered the aforementioned notices and declaration (DEs 156, 161, 172, 177), 

having heard oral argument of counsel for the parties, and for the reasons stated on 

the record - which are incorporated herein by reference as though fully stated herein 

- I make the following findings and rulings: 

 I do not find any evidence that Plaintiff circumvented the Court’s June and 

December 2016 orders. (DE 100, DE 146.) While these orders require the 

parties to seek this Court’s permission before filing a motion, these orders do 

not clearly prohibit the filing of a motion in another court. Moreover, as 

indicated in the record, Plaintiff has diligently filed letter notices seeking this 

Court’s permission to file motions on a number of other subjects. 

 

 Construing Plaintiff’s January 13, 2017 notice (DE 156) as one seeking this 

Court’s permission to file a motion in the S.D.N.Y. to enforce the Angelo 

subpoena is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. This Court is not inclined to revisit 

or undo Judge Engelmayer’s order. The S.D.N.Y. retains contempt 

jurisdiction over the Angelo subpoena. 

 

 The deposition of Mr. Angelo will go forward on February 23, 2017.6

 

 

5 Kathy P. Josephson (Chicago, Illinois) appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf; Alexander 

E. Blum and Gerard V. Mantese appeared on behalf of the Universal Defendants; 

and Gary R. Blumberg and Emily R. Warren appeared on behalf of the Summit 

Defendants. In addition, Richard G. Finch appeared on behalf of movants Pacific 

Marketing and Garden State Media, and Dena H. Shuayto and Bradley Stephen 

Defoe appeared on behalf of interested party Mike Mashhour. 

 

6

 During the February 22, 2017 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that 

the deposition will take place in Troy, MI instead of New York, by mutual 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 178 Filed 02/22/17 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 6905
6 

Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain Mr. Angelo’s deposition began well within the 

discovery period, and Defendants were aware of this. Therefore, it is of no 

import that the January 6, 2017 stipulated order (DE 147) does not address 

Mr. Angelo’s deposition. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order upon Michael 

Angelo, via his apparent counsel, Justin Haas. 

An interim order regarding the recently filed motion to extend (DE 175) will issue 

separately. Finally, the Court reiterates that, at the February 27, 2017 hearing, it 

will hear all motions noticed, with oral argument on the motion to withdraw 

occurring last. (DEs 123, 135, 159, 171 and 174.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 22, 2017 s/Anthony P. Patti 

Anthony P. Patti 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on February 22, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

 

agreement. 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 178 Filed 02/22/17 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 6906