Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). “A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time.” Id. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. Because Plaintiffs’ section 1962(c) claim is based on an alleged pattern of racketeering consisting entirely of the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, their substantive RICO allegations must comply not only with the plausibility criteria articulated in Twombly and Iqbal but also with Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard, which requires that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” See also Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pages Morales, 482 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We have held that pursuant to Rule 9(b), a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule 9b applies to  11 and 12a2 under the act despite fraud not being an element since they are grounded in fraud (B) holding that californias ucl claims are subject to rule 9b pleading standards (C) holding that because civil rico is penal in nature illinois twoyear statute of limitations for actions based on a statutory penalty applies to civil rico claims (D) holding that civil rico claims which are essentially a certain breed of fraud claims must be pled with an increased level of specificity under rule 9b (E) holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action
Output (English): holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action