RICO Law Blog : RICO Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Walker : Cosho Humphrey Law Firm : RICO Act, Federal and State Racketeering Litigation, Boise Idaho

A federal court judge in Oregon dismissed an unusually pled case on October 9, 2009.  In Arunga v. ACLU et al., 2009 WL 3274784  (D.Or.), plaintiffs James Aggrey-Kweggyirr Arunga and Doreen H. Lee sued 100 defendants asserting vague wrongdoings, including RICO violations. In a complaint over 90 pages long, plaintiffs' allege the following: “Nihilism;” “Racketeering;” “Bivens;” “Porno Finagling;” “Obstruction of Justice;” “Finagling Panjandrum at Law;” “Hired Hate Criminal and Hired Hit Person Obstructing Justice;” “Financial Finagler;” “SPL Hired Corrupt-Finagler Obstructing Justice;” “Concurrent-Consecutive Finagling Tortfeasors;” “SPL Political Finagler Obstructing Justice;” “Racketeering and Extortion Finagler Obstructing Justice;” and “False Business Practices.” Plaintiffs also note various random Articles and Sections of the United States Constitution, along with various United States Code provisions. Finally, plaintiffs seem to request of the court, a “Question of Law Or Fact Raised for A Class Action in Reverse.” Complaint. Specifically, plaintiffs asked: Whether a “State of Ochlocracy” composite a numerous Class of 100-Defendants that represent nationally, organized Perpetrators; Civil (Rights) Violators; and Tortfeasors can be incorporated, established, and admitted as “a New State” into the Union within the jurisdiction, junction and or parts of other States of the Union to: (1) Operate Criminal Businesses; (2) Conduct Civil (Rights) Violations; and (3) Practice concurrent-consecutive and joint Constitutional Torts Against plaintiffs.

The Arunga complaint is certainly one of the most unusual I have ever seen.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 9, 2008 Justice Thomas delivered the opinion in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., --- S.Ct. ----, 2008 WL 2329761 (U.S.) for a unanimous court holding that a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U.S.C. 1961 - 1968, provides a private right of action for treble damages to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” of the Act's criminal prohibitions.  The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In an apparent effort to stop “harassment” by the United Food and Commercial Workers union’s “corporate campaign,” Smithfield Foods management personnel brought a $5 million lawsuit against the union for its “public smear campaign.”  The suit was filed in Richmond, Va. under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.   According to Smithfield’s management, the United Food Workers have carried their aggressive “tricks” to far. Smithfield claims it has been harassed for many year, including boycotts, heckling people who promote Smithfield food products, and disruptive protests during shareholder meetings.  A company manager remarked, “This lawsuit was a last resort.” Smithfield’s huge hog-processing plant in Bladen County, North Carolina employing 5000 people is a union target for organization.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Dow Jones Newswire reported on December 5, 2007 that Sebastian River Holding's Inc. (SBRV) filed a lawsuit against E*Trade Financial Corp. alleging collusion by E*Trade employees to manipulate Sebastian's stock price.

The Sebastian, Fla., financial holding company said E*Trade illegally froze shareholders' accounts, preventing them from buying or selling shares or withdrawing cash.

Sebastian River is suing under the civil section of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeking actual and punitive damages for loss of market value and loss of business opportunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since 2003 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed almost 15,000 lawsuits charging computer users with trading music online. Now one of its targets is suing back. Tanya Andersen, a 42-year-old disabled single mother, has filed a countersuit in Oregon alleging that the industry's practices violate, among other laws, the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Last February, Andersen got a letter from a Los Angeles law firm informing her she was being sued for copyright infringement.  MediaSentry, an investigator retained by the recording industry, had allegedly caught her collecting gangsta rap on her hard drive late one night using peer-to-peer file sharing software.  Andersen's attorney, Lory R. Lybeck, says Andersen doesn't know how to use such software – indeed, that she doesn't even like gangsta rap. According to Lybeck, when Andersen tried to protest her innocence and offered up her computer for forensic analysis, she was told that the suit had to continue or others might be deterred from settling.

If Andersen really is being falsely charged, she probably isn't unique. In October attorney Ray Beckerman, who is defending another single mother against an RIAA suit, told Wired News he believes thousands of defendants may have been falsely accused. As Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Director Cindy Cohn points out, investigators may incorrectly link file lists to Internet protocol addresses, and cable companies have been known to incorrectly link IP addresses to customers. Furthermore, as home and cafe wireless networks become more common, there's no guarantee that the customer was the one sharing music.

Article provided by Mustang 88 FM Jakarta.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Carissa Wyant of the Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal reported in its July 20, 2007 edition that the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association and the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Insurers Association filed suit against American International Group Inc. on July 17, 2007 seeking to recover more than $100 million in damages for fraudulent actions and violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleges that New York-based AIG understated its workers' compensation business in Minnesota for the past 22 years, in order to avoid paying part of a collective statewide fund covering large workplace injury claims. AIG representatives said the company does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The WCRA is a nonprofit association of about 600 members, which was created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1979 to supply reinsurance to all insurers and self-insurers in Minnesota. This reinsurance is used to pay catastrophic workers' compensation claims to injured Minnesota workers.

RICO Law Blog will keep an eye on this one. AIG will likely make a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) within the next few weeks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many federal district courts have issued standing orders requiring a “RICO Case Statement” be filed at, or shortly after, the time a complaint alleging civil RICO claims is filed. These case statements are intended to meet the “reasonable inquiry” standard required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The court in the Eastern District of Tennessee reminded an errant plaintiff of this requirement in a decision issued on May 21, 2007. The court in Anderson v. Thompson, 2007 WL 1490596 (May 21, 2007) (E.D.Tenn.) provided the requirements of its RICO Case Statement in a decision issued in response to a “curious proposed order” that was delivered by plaintiff’s counsel to the Court's chambers in contravention of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable local rules. One must wonder “What were they thinking?” In any event, check out the decision for the RICO Case Statement required in the Eastern District of Tennessee, which is typical of such standing orders.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I have previously noted, properly pleading RICO claims is a challenge. The reality is that if the RICO claims are not comprehensively documented in the complaint, the plaintiff will face a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the state rule equivalents, before the defendant answers. A couple of recent cases are on point. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that last Friday afternoon, a federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Brunei prince against two of his advisers, a British husband-and-wife team. The prince claimed the couple conned him and his companies out of millions of dollars, violating federal racketeering laws in the process. Judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; after he issued the ruling, the plaintiffs turned around and filed the claim in New York state court. Here’s the amended complaint that was filed in federal court. The complaint is interesting because of the detailed pleading of complex facts. The WJS law bloggers, however, noted:

The reason we write about this case has nothing to do with civil procedure or financial fraud. Rather, we’re pleased to report that we have a new member of the Law Blog All-Name Team. The Brunei prince’s name: Duli Yang Teramat Mulia Paduka Seri Pengiran Digadong Sahibul Mal Pengiran Muda Haji Jefri Bolkiah.  It’s the longest-named litigant we’ve ever seen and, who knows, it might just be the longest name ever to grace the caption of a U.S. lawsuit.

In TransFirst Holdings, Inc. v. Phillips, 2007 WL 1468553  (N.D. Tex.) (May 18, 2007), the court dealt with a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). This decision lays out the factors most courts typically consider in evaluating pleading of RICO claims.

The federal court in the Eastern District of California issued a decision last week in McColm v. Restoration Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1470106 (E.D.Cal.) (May 18, 2007) addressing a plaintiff’s attempt to turn an ordinary dispute into a federal RICO case. In this regard the court noted –

Indeed, after careful review of the complaint, the court concludes that plaintiff has attempted, unsuccessfully, to conflate simple state law contract and fraud claims involving California residents into a federal RICO action. More specifically, plaintiff has failed to allege criminal “predicate acts” and “continuity” required to establish a “pattern of racketeering activity.”

A review of the Prince Jefri complaint and the two cases noted above should be instructive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks