UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/3/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM BURKE; ROBERT L.

CARLSON, BRUCE CARMAN;

GERALD CIHONE; ANDREW

DECARO; FRENCH DENWALT;

DAMON DOKTER; DION DOKTER;

FRANK DOKTER; ANGELINE

ENGEMAN; DOROTHY M. FORBUS;

ED FOSTER; WILLIAM FRENCH;

JOHN HAARDE; MARTIN HELMKE;

KEVIN HIPSHER; JACK HYDE; MIKE

IGNAFFO; VIRGINIA KRIST; BOB

KUNZE; FRANK LAFFADAY;

ROBERT LEHMAN; LESLIE LORTZ;

W.H. LONGWORTHY; DARRYL

LUBER; JOE MANEK; LILA MANEK;

RANDY MANEK; WANDA JEAN

MAXEY, as Trustee of the Wanda Maxey

Trust Fund; SHIRLEE MAE MEOLA;

HUGH MULLENMEISTER;

VINCENZO MURE; JAMES

PENDLETON; LARRY PILGRIM;

NORM PILGRIM; MIKE RANDY;

KATHLEEN REINSCHMIEDT; ANNE

REINSCHMIEDT; DALLAS ROACH;

MIKE SEVI; VIRGINIA SEWELL; JIM

SHORT; HARRY SKIDMORE; L. MIKE

SMITH; HENRY I. TOOMBS, JR;

LEE O. WADDLETON; ROBERT

WHITLEY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JERRY DON WOODS; WOODS

ENERGY, INC., also known as Woods

No. 95-6094

(D.C. No. CIV-92-110-C)

(W.D. Okla.)
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms

and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

2

Petroleum; DIRECT HOME

MARKETING, INC.; GARRY TEAGUE;

WAYNE BROWN; DAVID

MERRYMAN, doing business as

Merryman Drilling Company,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted

without oral argument.

Plaintiffs, a group of investors in various Texas oil and gas drilling joint ventures,

sued an initial group of defendants alleging damages arising from common law fraud and

from violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1961-1968. As the underlying predicate acts necessary to maintain the RICO claim,
1 After the filing of the complaint in this case, the Supreme Court decided Central Bank

v. First Interstate Bank, 114 S. Ct. 1439 (1994), which holds that a private plaintiff may not

maintain a suit under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), for aiding and

abetting. Id. at 1455; see also Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., No. 95-5086, 1996 WL

31973, at *6-9 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 1996). Neither the district court nor the parties have

discussed Central Bank, and we affirm the district court on alternative grounds. 

3

plaintiffs alleged fraud in the sale of securities, bank fraud, mail fraud, and money

laundering. 

The essence of plaintiffs' complaint is that defendants illegally sold interests in the oil

and gas ventures while they were fully aware that the entire oil field at issue had already been

sold to a third party. They further allege that one defendant negligently operated the oil field

so as to enable another defendant to reacquire an interest therein. Plaintiffs eventually

amended their original complaint to add Larry Teague, Garry Teague, Teague Operating

Company, and David Merryman as defendants. The original defendants have confessed

judgment. This appeal, therefore, involves only the latter group of defendants who are sued

for their alleged roles as aiders and abettors in the claimed fraud based primarily on their

failure to disclose relevant matters to plaintiffs.1

The district court issued two orders which are the subject of this appeal. In the first

order, the court granted motions to dismiss on behalf of Garry Teague and David Merryman

for lack of in personam jurisdiction. See First Attachment to Appellants' Opening Br. In the

second order, the court granted the motion to dismiss on behalf of Larry Teague and Teague

Operating Company holding, inter alia, that plaintiffs' securities fraud claims were
2

Jurisdiction in this case was challenged because the notice of appeal did not set forth

the names of all parties taking the appeal as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) and Torres v.

Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317 (1988). However, because the appellants filed

their docketing statement specifically listing the individuals taking the appeal within the time

allotted to take an appeal, this court has jurisdiction. See Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d

1342, 1344 (10th Cir. 1992).

4

time-barred or, in the alternative, that they had not been pled with the specificity required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and were thus dismissable under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs' other fraud

claims and the RICO claim were similarly dismissed for plaintiffs' failure to plead them with

particularity.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in determining it could not

exercise personal jurisdiction over Garry Teague and David Merryman consistent with

principles of due process. They further argue that they have adequately pled a RICO claim

against all defendants, including the required predicate acts sufficient to survive a Rule

12(b)(6) dismissal. Upon review of the briefs and record in this case, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.2

Personal Jurisdiction over Garry Teague and David Merryman

This suit was brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma. The complaint alleges that defendants Garry Teague and David Merryman reside

in Texas. "To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action,

a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that

the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth
5

Amendment." Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995)(citing

Rambo v. American S. Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1416 (10th Cir. 1988)). 

The law of Oklahoma, as the forum state, determines whether the district court had

jurisdiction over these nonresident defendants. Yarbrough v. Elmer Bunker & Assocs., 669

F.2d 614, 616 (10th Cir. 1982). Because Oklahoma's long-arm statute provides that state

courts may exercise jurisdiction consistent with the United States Constitution, the personal

jurisdiction inquiry under Oklahoma law collapses into the single due process inquiry.

Rambo, 839 F.2d at 1416. 

The general constitutional test for personal jurisdiction is

well-established. A federal court sitting in diversity may exercise personal

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist minimum

contacts between the defendant and the forum State. The defendant's contacts

with the forum state must also be such that maintenance of the suit does not

offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A defendant's

contacts are sufficient if the defendant purposefully avails itself of the

privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.

Far West Capital, 46 F.3d at 1074 (quotations and citations omitted).

The only factual allegation of distinct contacts between Mr. Teague and Mr.

Merryman and the State of Oklahoma relate to mail to and from the forum state. Plaintiffs

allege that defendants "caused letters, checks, applications, permits, maps and other things

to be delivered by the United States Postal Service to and from this district and elsewhere."

See App. tab A at ¶60. However, none of the mailings are alleged to have come from

defendants themselves or to have been sent to individual plaintiffs. 
6

"It is well-established that . . . letters are not necessarily sufficient in themselves to

establish minimum contacts." Far West Capital, 46 F.3d at 1077. Without further evidence

of more substantial involvement between defendants and Oklahoma, we must agree with the

district court that these isolated contacts are insufficient to allow the conclusion that these

defendants "purposefully avail[ed themselves] of the privilege of conducting activities within

[Oklahoma]." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).

 Plaintiffs further argue that their allegations that defendants transacted business in

Oklahoma and committed torts in Texas which caused injury in Oklahoma demonstrate

sufficient contacts upon which to base personal jurisdiction. We disagree. 

In Far West Capital, 46 F.3d at 1079, we held that the mere allegation that a

nonresident defendant tortiously injured a forum resident does not necessarily establish

sufficient minimum contacts to confer personal jurisdiction on the forum. "Instead, in order

to resolve the jurisdictional question, a court must undertake a particularized inquiry as to the

extent to which the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the forum's

laws." Id. at 1079. Because there is nothing more in the complaint than the general

allegations that defendants transacted business in Oklahoma and caused torts there, the

court's particularized inquiry is limited solely to the specific mailings allegedly participated

in by defendants. As we have concluded above, these mailings, by themselves, are

insufficient contacts upon which to base jurisdiction over these defendants.
7

Plaintiffs argue that the enactment of Fed R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) has made minimum

contact analysis irrelevant. This argument is clearly wrong. Rule 4(k)(2) provides federal

long-arm jurisdiction under specified circumstances only "over the person of any defendant

who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any state."

Defendants are subject to the courts of general jurisdiction of the State of Texas. Rule

4(k)(2), therefore, has no application here.

 Plaintiffs' contention that, because we must take the factual allegations of a complaint

as true when reviewing a 12(b)(6) dismissal, we are similarly bound by counsel's recital in

the complaint that jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Western District of Oklahoma is

without merit. The district court did not err in concluding that it could not exercise personal

jurisdiction over defendants Garry Teague and David Merryman.

RICO Claim

We now consider plaintiffs' RICO claim against defendants Larry Teague and Teague

Operating Company. As noted above, defendants Larry Teague and Teague Operating

Company are implicated in plaintiffs' complaint as aiders and abettors. The district court

found that plaintiffs' claims under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), § 20(a)

of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t, and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, were

time-barred and, further, as noted above, that the § 10(b) claims were not pled with the

specificity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 
3 Because we dispose of the RICO claim for plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently plead

racketeering activity at all, we need not reach whether plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to

establish a pattern of racketeering activity. 

8

The dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of

Rule 9(b) is treated as a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v.

Carlstedt, 800 F.2d 1008, 1011 (10th Cir. 1986). Because the district court dismissed

plaintiff's claims on the pleadings, we determine de novo whether the claims are legally

sufficient. Id. Neither this court nor the district court may weigh the evidence or consider

the plaintiffs' chances of success. Id.

"To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a civil RICO claim must allege '(1) conduct (2)

of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.'" Cayman Exploration

Corp. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 873 F.2d 1357, 1362 (10th Cir. 1989)(quoting Sedima,

S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)). A 'pattern of racketeering activity' is

defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) to include conduct that is 'chargeable' or 'indictable' under a

host of state and federal laws. National Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 114 S. Ct. 798,

803 (1994). Among the categories of conduct "chargeable" or "indictable" under federal law

are mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, financial institution fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and fraud in

the sale of securities. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). The district court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint

for failure to allege the predicate racketeering activities with sufficient particularity to satisfy

Rule 9(b).3 We agree.

In securities fraud cases,
9

Rule 9(b) does not . . . require the pleading of detailed evidentiary matter, nor

does it require any particularity in connection with an averment of intent,

knowledge, or condition of mind. It only requires identification of the

circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. That requirement means . . . that

individual plaintiffs should designate the occasions on which affirmative

statements were allegedly made to them--and by whom; and that individual

plaintiffs should designate what affirmative misstatements or half-truths were

directed to them--and how.

Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 800 F.2d at 1011 (quoting Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 228

F. Supp. 757, 774-75 (D. Colo. 1964)). 

From what we can discern from the complaint, defendants apparently sold leases to

the primary violators, Jerry Don Woods and his company, Donex, which ultimately enabled

Woods and Donex to consummate the later allegedly fraudulent resale to plaintiffs. Because

plaintiffs here accuse defendants of secondary liability, their complaint must establish facts

showing "fraud in the sale of securities by the primary violator, knowledge of that fraud by

an aider and abettor, and 'substantial assistance' by the aider and abettor." Farlow v. Peat,

Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 956 F.2d 982, 986 (10th Cir. 1992)(quoting Barker v. Henderson,

Franklin, Starnes & Holt, 797 F.2d 490, 496 (7th Cir. 1986)). 

After reviewing the complaint, we agree with the district court that plaintiffs have

failed to meet this standard. The complaint repeatedly refers to defendants' "substantial

assistance" in the fraud without elaboration. See App. tab A ¶¶ 20, 26, 32. Further

allegations include conclusory charges that defendants assisted in the illegal marketing and

sale of the securities, see id. at ¶ 26, and engaged in a "fraudulent course of conduct," see id.
4 Plaintiffs' assertion that their claims under § 20 of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5

(continued...)

10

at ¶ 42. We directed in Seattle-First National Bank, 800 F.2d at 1011, that when pleading

an action for securities fraud, individual plaintiffs must allege exactly what defendants did

to them, when they did it, and how the alleged fraud was perpetrated. Because plaintiffs

failed to do so, this case mirrors the situation in Farlow where "the conclusory allegations

of direct misrepresentation . . . are simply without supporting facts in terms of allegations."

Farlow, 956 F.2d at 989. Such conclusory allegations are not enough to allege fraud with the

particularity required by Rule 9(b). 

Further, and again as in Farlow, the sum of plaintiffs' allegations is a failure by

defendants to disclose pertinent features of the transaction to plaintiffs. Absent a showing

of a "fiduciary or other similar relation of trust and confidence" between defendants and

plaintiffs, see Farlow, 956 F.2d at 987, the failures to disclose identified in the complaint,

see, e.g., App. tab A at ¶¶ 33, 36(b), 54, are not actionable. Plaintiffs do not allege any such

relationship.

Plaintiffs here needed to know what their claims were when the complaint was filed.

"[A] plaintiff in a non-9(b) suit can sue now and discover later what his claim is, but a Rule

9(b) claimant must know what his claim is when he files it." Farlow, 956 F.2d at 990 (citing

In re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Corp. Sec. Litig., 467 F. Supp. 227, 250 (W.D.

Tex. 1979)). The district court was correct to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under § 10(b) for

want of specificity.4
4

(...continued)

can survive a finding of no claim under § 10(b) is without merit. Section 20 imposes liability

on anyone who "controls any person liable under any provision of the [relevant] chapter."

15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). If there is no § 10b claim, there can be no controlling person liability

based on 10(b). The same analysis applies to a claim under Rule 10b-5.

11

With respect to plaintiffs' claim that defendants engaged in illegal money laundering,

we note that the sum of plaintiffs' money laundering allegations is that "[t]he actions of

[Teague Operating Company and], L. Teague . . . constituted money laundering and bank

fraud and are evidenced by specific transfers of money and deposits of money in national

banks . . . " Appellants' App. tab A at ¶ 59. Plaintiffs then go on to list deposits in particular

banks and checks from various defendants made payable to other defendants. 

We will not go into the variety and nature of possible money laundering schemes. At

least two detailed federal statutes are devoted to crimes of money laundering. See 18

U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957. It is enough to say that plaintiffs' conclusory allegations fail to allege

money laundering as a predicate offense with anything even close to the required specificity.

As discussed above, plaintiffs allege that certain transfers of money into and out of

certain national banks constituted bank fraud and that the mailing of certain letters, checks,

maps, etc., constituted mail fraud. See App. tab A at ¶¶ 60-62. The essence of both mail

fraud and bank fraud, however, is the existence of a scheme to defraud. United States v.

Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 585 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926 (1991). We have upheld

the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' securities fraud claims. Without the fraud scheme

in place, there can be no viable mail or bank fraud claims. Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the
12

attribution of fraudulent acts among co-conspirators is irrelevant.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge