May 30, 2026  ·  Updated July 14, 2026

By David Brunk, civil litigation attorney

Read the complaint

Life Star Living v. Getter tests RICO liability for alleged usury and fraud in merchant cash advance dealings. Challenges Legality of $8.36M Payment

Life Star Living, LLC, along with associated entities Lifestar Talent, LLC, Lifestar Capital, LLC, and individual plaintiffs David Benjamin Falk and Joel Leslie Anderson, have initiated legal proceedings against Yoel Getter, David A. Jaskowlski, Gold Capital USA, LLC, and Madison Group, LLC. The complaint, filed on May 30, 2026, under the docket number 1:26-cv-04554-PAE, alleges wrongful conduct in a series of Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) transactions totaling approximately $8,365,000.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants orchestrated a fraudulent scheme designed to disguise loans as MCAs in a manner that violates federal RICO statutes, aiming to evade usury laws and charge exorbitant interest rates. Central to the allegations is the contention that the defendants conducted their operations through misrepresentations and deceptive practices, falsely representing transactions as valid MCAs while retaining the characteristics of loans with guaranteed repayment obligations. These actions, plaintiffs assert, led them to incur substantial financial damages predicated on agreements that were purportedly void ab initio.

Parties Involved in the Case

The plaintiffs in this case are Life Star Living, LLC, Lifestar Talent, LLC, and Lifestar Capital, LLC, all Florida limited liability companies. They are controlled by individual members David Benjamin Falk, a resident of Maryland, and Joel Leslie Anderson, a resident of Florida. According to the complaint, these entities and individuals collectively operate under the "Life Star" banner, purportedly focusing on legitimate business operations that have been adversely affected by the alleged fraudulent activities.

The defendants named in the complaint are Yoel Getter, a Florida resident with purported ties to merchant cash advance (MCA) operations; David A. Jaskowlski, a resident of New York; Gold Capital USA, LLC, a New York limited liability company; and Madison Group, LLC, another New York limited liability company. The complaint alleges that these parties collectively engaged in practices that crossed into fraudulent territory, exploiting MCA agreements to disguise unlawful debt collections and avoid usury laws. The plaintiffs claim that Getter and Jaskowlski were central figures in orchestrating these schemes through their respective entities.

The complaint emphasizes the alleged roles of the entities owned by Getter and Jaskowlski in facilitating and concealing the illicit activities. Gold Capital USA, LLC, and Madison Group, LLC, are accused of being primary vehicles for implementing the alleged deceptive practices, which include unlawfully collected debts under the guise of MCA agreements. The plaintiffs contend that these entities were involved in obscuring true loan characteristics, falsely portraying them as non-loan transactions, allegedly enabling the defendants to charge excessive interest and fees.

This legal action seeks redress for what the plaintiffs describe as a coordinated effort by the defendants to exploit financial transactions by misleading the plaintiffs into detrimental agreements under fraudulent pretenses. The plaintiffs aim to recover for the damages sustained under a range of civil claims, which include violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), fraud, and civil theft, among others, as outlined in the complaint’s detailed allegations.

Alleged Mechanism of Fraud

The complaint alleges that the Defendants operated a fraudulent scheme by disguising usurious loans as Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) agreements. According to the plaintiffs, these agreements were falsely characterized as receivable purchases to circumvent usury laws. The underlying transactions, however, functioned as loans with absolute repayment obligations, rendering the so-called reconciliation feature illusory.

At the core of the alleged scheme were misleading "early payoff discounts" purportedly used by Defendants Yoel Getter and David Jaskowlski to attract and deceive the plaintiffs. The complaint specifies a high-profile example of an unhonored discount of $450,000, which was allegedly advertised as an incentive but never materialized. Instead, this discount served as a mechanism to lure the plaintiffs into agreements with inflated repayment amounts, further enhancing the financial burden.

It is further contested that the agreements were structured in a manner that coercively trapped the plaintiffs into paying excessive amounts. Alleged detailed manipulations of MCA agreements included purported payback amounts that exceeded the funds provided by significant margins and offered discounts that were described as fraudulent. Such tactics, according to the complaint, essentially forced the plaintiffs into disadvantageous financial arrangements under false pretenses.

Financing and Money Transactions

The complaint details several Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) agreements allegedly designed to impose unlawful terms on the Plaintiffs, facilitated by Gold Capital USA, LLC, and Madison Group, LLC. According to the filing, one significant transaction occurred on March 27, 2026, when Gold Capital entered into an MCA agreement with Lifestar Talent LLC, setting a purchase price of $2,200,000 with a corresponding future receivable amount identified at $3,190,000.

Additionally, specific other MCA agreements included a transaction with a purchase price of $2,000,000 and purchased amount of $3,000,000, as well as another with a purchase price of $1,500,000 and purchased amount of $2,175,000 (Compl. ¶27, ¶28, ¶29). The MCA balance with Gold Capital was listed at $1,820,712, indicating substantial financial obligations imposed on the plaintiffs (Compl. ¶31, ¶36).

Weekly remittance amounts detailed in the complaint—$103,571.42 under the Gold Capital MCA and $183,333.33 under the Madison Group MCA—further exemplify the significant financial burdens resulting from these MCA agreements (Compl. ¶4, ¶32).

The complaint further alleges that Gold Capital and Madison Group imposed excessive interest charges. The Plaintiffs contend that the MCAs employed "discounts" to attract them into these agreements, yet ultimately failed to honor such inducements, adding significant unauthorized financial burdens.

These transactions are central to the RICO and fraud claims brought by the Plaintiffs, who argue that the MCA agreements were crafted strategically to maintain the appearance of legitimate financial dealings while imposing usurious interest rates under the guise of receivable purchase agreements.

Civil RICO and Other Federal Allegations

The complaint filed by Life Star Living, LLC and related entities asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), specifically citing 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants Yoel Getter, David A. Jaskowlski, Gold Capital USA, LLC, and Madison Group, LLC operated as an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. Key predicates include allegations of wire fraud, bank fraud, and mail fraud as mechanisms of the purported scheme.

Under Count I, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants employed these fraudulent practices to create agreements labeled as Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs), which functioned as high-interest loans under the guise of receivables purchases. The complaint alleges that the defendants used interstate communication and financial systems, including emails and wire transfers, to facilitate these wrongful acts across state lines.

Count II of the complaint accuses Getter, Jaskowlski, Gold Capital USA, LLC, and Madison Group, LLC of participating in a conspiracy to conduct or participate in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, as prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The plaintiffs allege that this conspiracy involved systematic efforts to mislead parties into entering disadvantageous financial agreements by falsely presenting terms of early payoff discounts and by disguising unlawful debts as legitimate receivables transactions.

RICO claims, as articulated by the plaintiffs, seek to impose liability on the defendants for damages resulting from the alleged pattern of criminal activity and conspiracy. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages as permitted under the RICO statute, along with attorneys' fees, costs, and other equitable relief. These allegations, while detailed, remain unproven and are yet to be contested by the defendants.

State Law Claims

The complaint asserts several state law claims alongside the federal RICO allegations. Count III accuses Yoel Getter and David A. Jaskowlski of committing fraud against the plaintiffs, Life Star Living, LLC and its associated entities, as well as Falk and Anderson individually. The filing alleges that Getter and Jaskowlski engaged in fraudulent activities by falsely advertising certain financial incentives, such as the $450,000 early payoff discount, which they never intended to honor. These actions, it contends, were part of a deliberate scheme to extract funds from the plaintiffs under false pretenses.

Count IV alleges civil theft under Florida Statute § 772.11 against the defendants collectively referred to as "the Enterprise." The complaint claims that the Enterprise deliberately mislabeled loans as Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs) to disguise their true nature as usurious loans. This legal claim maintains that the Enterprise's activities facilitated illegal wealth transfer from the plaintiffs, making them liable for civil theft. The statute allows plaintiffs to recover threefold the actual damages incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees.

In Count V, the plaintiffs bring a breach of contract claim against Gold Capital LLC and Madison Group LLC. According to the filing, these defendants failed to honor contractual obligations related to MCAs, which resulted in specific financial losses. The complaint highlights two primary components of the breach of contract claim: a $450,000 shortfall identified with the promised early payment discount and $1,100,000 in additional interest characterized as damages stemming from the defendants' failure to comply with the agreed terms. This count underscores the plaintiffs' position that the defendants’ failure to meet contractual commitments inflicted measurable harm, meriting legal redress.

These state law claims, centered on the allegations of fraud, civil theft, and breach of contract, seek to supplement the overarching narrative of willful misconduct and financial exploitation, as detailed in the broader legal filing.

Distinctive Filings and Assertions

The complaint asserts that Defendants masterminded various misrepresentations to lure the Plaintiffs into agreements predicated on false pretenses, including fraudulent discount promises. Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants promised significant discount opportunities on early payoffs, which were not honored, thereby inducing Plaintiffs into further agreements under deceptive terms.

Additionally, the complaint categorically labels these transactions as loans masked as Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) agreements, arguing this qualifies them as unlawful debts under statutory definitions due to the circumvention of usury laws. Plaintiffs argue that, despite the structuring of these transactions as MCA agreements, their characteristics align more with loans, thereby violating prohibitions on excessive interest. This legal assertion is central, as it hinges on the argument that these MCA agreements were indistinguishable from traditional loans requiring absolute repayment, in contrast to the reconciliation mechanisms advertised.

The complaint further alleges that the enterprise intentionally employed these misrepresentations to create and exploit advantageous financial terms while bypassing legal safeguards designed to protect against such exploitative practices. By disguising loans as MCA agreements purportedly purchasing future receivables, the enterprise purportedly evaded statutory protections concerning usury laws, positioning these agreements as unlawful.

To secure relief, Plaintiffs seek remedies including the imposition of a constructive trust and disgorgement of misappropriated funds, as well as statutory treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Plaintiffs assert they sustained significant economic injuries due to these misrepresented transactions, rendering the agreements void from inception. The complaint ultimately seeks comprehensive compensatory and punitive measures tailored to address these alleged malpractices.

Relief Sought and Procedural Status

The plaintiffs in Life Star Living v. Getter are pursuing significant remedies in response to alleged fraudulent activities and usurious lending practices disguised as merchant cash advances. According to the complaint, plaintiffs seek treble damages under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), in addition to substantial compensatory damages, which plaintiffs have quantified at a minimum of $1,650,000 corresponding to Counts III through V. These counts pertain to claims of fraud, civil theft, and breach of contract.

Beyond these compensatory damages, the plaintiffs also request punitive and exemplary damages, which serve to penalize the defendants for their alleged misconduct and to act as a deterrent against similar future behavior by others. The complaint details that any funds wrongfully obtained by the defendants from the plaintiffs should be disgorged and that plaintiffs seek full restitution of these amounts, ensuring the defendants do not benefit from their alleged wrongful acts.

Further, the plaintiffs are seeking the imposition of a constructive trust or an equitable lien on all proceeds traceable to the $1,650,000 in funds that the plaintiffs claim have been misappropriated by the defendants. This equitable relief is desired to effectuate a legal interest for the plaintiffs in these funds and to prevent their dissipation.

The complaint emphasizes a prayer for specific relief, including the request for treble damages under RICO, attorneys' fees, costs, statutory relief available under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and injunctive relief for the preservation of records related to the $450,000 (Prayer for Relief, i–ii, viii, ix).

As of the filing date, May 30, 2026, no procedural status updates have been reported. The allegations outlined in the complaint remain unproven, and no defendant has yet filed a response.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.