This case was last updated from PACER on 10/06/2021 at 07:20:31 (UTC).

DeSola v. Hodes et al

Case Summary

On October 5, 2021, DeSola (“DeSola” or “Plaintiff”), represented by James Anthony Gale of Cozen O. Connor, filed an Antitrust Action against Robert Hodes (“Hodes”), Ocean Consulting Group Inc. (“OCG”) and Cost Containment Group (“CCG”), (collectively “Defendants”), seeking permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief along with prejudgment and post-judgement interest among other relief for the alleged conspiracy of Defendants to restrain trade and commerce. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Mr. DeSola is a licensed insurance agent whose employment was improperly terminated due to an illegal “no-poach” agreement between Defendants and their competitors. This action is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, challenging naked no-poaching agreements orchestrated between and among Defendants Hodes, OCG, CCG, and their competitors. Defendants and their competitors agreed that Defendants’ competitors would not solicit or hire—or even contact--any employees or independent contractors of Defendants’ enterprise (hereinafter, the “No-Hire Agreements” or “No-Poach Agreements”).”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “Hodes and his fellow defendants entered into illegal, naked "no-poaching" agreements with competitors, preventing insurance agents from ever working for competitors. Despite the fact that these naked, no-poaching arrangements have been specifically identified and targeted for investigation and prosecution by the Department of Justice, Hodes and his fellow defendants nevertheless employed one of the country's most prominent lawyers to intimidate and coerce their competitors to comply with these unlawful agreements” and “The goal of Hodes and his fellow defendants is to ensure that their inferior high-margin, low benefit insurance-type products will continue to be the only products available to their network and so that competitors can never engage defendants’ former employees and independent contractors to offer consumers better policies.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “DeSola formerly worked indirectly as a licensed insurance agent for Defendants’ enterprise. As part of that enterprise, DeSola sold health care products with limited benefits that were offered and administered by Defendants and marketed by Insurance Care Direct, LLC (“ICD”) and administered by the Defendants. DeSola was laid off in November 2018” and “DeSola began indirectly working as a licensed insurance agent for a competitor of Defendants’ Enterprise that offered more competitive insurance products at better rates than those offered by Defendants and ICD” and “In April 2020, Defendants’ competitors terminated DeSola due to threats from Defendant Hodes and ICD that the Defendants and their enterprise would have David Boies and the Boies Schiller law firm sue DeSola’s new indirect employer if it did not immediately terminate DeSola.”

 

There is one claim of relief laid down by Plaintiff for the alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. 

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief along with damages, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15, in an amount that is threefold the damages sustained by Plaintiff along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief. Plaintiff also requested the court for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief the court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    9:21-CV-81869

  • Filing Date:

    10/05/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Antitrust

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Francis DeSola

Defendants

Robert Hodes

Ocean Consulting Group, Inc.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Ste. 810

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2323

Cost Containment Group, Inc.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Ste 810

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

James Anthony Gale

Attorney at Cozen O Connor

2 South Biscayne Blvd, 3000

Miami, STE 3000

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Exhibit A - Department of Justices Antirust Guidance for Human Resource Professi

1 #2

Exhibit B- Letter from David Boies

1 #3

Exhibit C - Declaration of Robert Hodes

1 #4

Exhibit D - Program Management & Marketing Agreement

1 #5

Exhibit E - NCE Termination Letter

1 #6

Exhibit F - Hodes Email

1 #7

Exhibit G- PAS Termination Letter

1 #8

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #9

Summon(s) Robert Hodes

1 #10

Summon(s) Ocean Consulting Group, Inc.

1 #11

Summon(s) Cost Containment Group, Inc.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15069607, filed by Francis DeSola. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Department of Justices Antirust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals, #2 Exhibit B- Letter from David Boies, #3 Exhibit C - Declaration of Robert Hodes, #4 Exhibit D - Program Management & Marketing Agreement, #5 Exhibit E - NCE Termination Letter, #6 Exhibit F - Hodes Email, #7 Exhibit G- PAS Termination Letter, #8 Civil Cover Sheet, #9 Summon(s) Robert Hodes, #10 Summon(s) Ocean Consulting Group, Inc., #11 Summon(s) Cost Containment Group, Inc.)(Gale, James) (Entered: 10/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Ocean Consulting Group Incorporated is a litigant

Latest cases where Cost Containment Group, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer James Anthony Gale