United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-30670 

____________ 

Sharon Lewis, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Garrett Danos, Individually, also known as Hank; Robert 

Yarborough, Individually, also known as Bobby; Stanley Jacobs, 

Individually; Vicki Crochet, Individually; Robert Barton, 

Individually, also known as Bob; Leslie Edwin Miles, Individually, 

also known as Les; Scott Woodward, Individually; Verge 

Ausberry, Individually; Miriam Segar, Individually; William 

Shelby McKenzie, Individually; Joseph Alleva, Individually, also 

known as Joe, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 3:21-CV-198 

______________________________ 

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Circuit Judge: 

In 2012 and 2013, Plaintiff-Appellant Sharon Lewis—then an 

Assistant Athletic Director at Louisiana State University (“LSU”)—

internally reported Head Football Coach Les Miles for sexually harassing 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 12, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

2 

students. LSU retained outside counsel—Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips 

LLP (“Taylor Porter”)—to investigate the matter, culminating in a formal 

report dated May 15, 2013 (the “Taylor Porter Report”). That report and its 

contents were kept internal. Matters were privately settled, and Miles stayed 

on as head coach until 2016. 

Lewis alleges that Defendants-Appellees—members of LSU’s Board 

of Supervisors (the “Board”), leadership, and athletics department, along 

with lawyers at Taylor Porter (“Taylor Porter Defendants” and, collectively, 

“Defendants”)—engaged in a concerted effort to illegally conceal the Taylor 

Porter Report and Miles’s wrongdoings. Lewis also alleges workplace 

retaliation for having reported Miles. She brings both employment and civil 

RICO claims. The district court dismissed Lewis’s RICO-related allegations 

as time-barred and inadequately pleaded as to causation. We now review and 

AFFIRM that dismissal. 

I. 

Lewis initiated her suit after widespread sexual misconduct in LSU’s 

athletics program was reported by USA Today in a November 2020 article 

(the “Article”). USA Today went on to file a public document request for the 

Taylor Porter Report. That request was litigated in Louisiana state court. See 

Jacoby v. Galligan, No. C-703746 (La. 19th Jud. Dist. Ct.). USA Today 

prevailed, and a redacted copy of the Taylor Porter Report was released to 

the public. Concurrently, LSU retained new counsel—Husch Blackwell 

LLP—to investigate the Article’s alleged incidents, including those related 

to Miles. That investigation generated another formal report dated March 3, 

2021 (the “Husch Blackwell Report”). LSU released the Husch Blackwell 

Report a day after the Taylor Porter Report was made public.

In April 2021, Lewis filed the instant suit. In it, she alleged 

employment and professional harms, bringing claims pursuant to Titles VII 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

3 

and IX, and civil RICO.1 Relevant to this appeal, on December 2, 2021, the 

district court ruled that many of Lewis’s claims were time-barred 

(“December 2 Order”). Lewis was permitted to seek leave to file a second 

amended complaint and an amended RICO statement to “amend her civil 

RICO claims against [Defendants] William Shelby McKenzie, Vicki Crochet, 

Robert Barton, . . . Joseph Alleva, Miriam Segar, Verge Ausberry, and Scott 

Woodward, in their individual capacities.” 

On December 10, 2021, Lewis filed a motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint and a first amended RICO case statement. That motion 

was denied for failure to comply with the December 2 Order’s parameters for 

seeking amendment. On December 17, 2021, Lewis filed a motion to 

reconsider the December 2 Order, which was denied on January 19, 2022 

(“January 19 Order”). With the court’s permission, Lewis again moved for 

leave to file a second amended complaint and a first amended RICO 

statement. While that motion was pending, Lewis prematurely appealed the 

January 19 Order. A panel of this court promptly dismissed that appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction on April 28, 2022. Lewis v. La. State Univ., No. 22-30072, 

2022 WL 3161699, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022). 

On February 25, 2022, the district court held a status conference to 

walk through the pending proposed complaint and RICO statement. At that 

conference, the court again denied Lewis’s motion and detailed the 

corrections, clarifications, and additions necessary for Lewis’s compliance 

with the December 2 Order. On March 3, 2022, Lewis filed yet another 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and amended RICO 

_____________________ 

1

 A parallel state court action was also initiated by Lewis, which is relevant to our 

later discussion of res judicata. See Lewis v. La. State Univ., No. C-708092 (La. 19th Jud. 

Dist. Ct.).

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

4 

statement. The district court granted that motion, which brings us to the 

operative complaint (“SAC”). 

The SAC alleges a private cause of action for damages under RICO, 

specifically under two types of claims: a substantive racketeering claim 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and a conspiracy to commit racketeering 

claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Lewis alleges the following predicate 

offenses committed by an enterprise formed of various Defendants: 18 

U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1512 

(concealing documents or obstructing official proceedings); 18 U.S.C. § 1513 

(retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant); and 18 U.S.C. § 1952 

(interstate travel in aid of racketeering). Lewis lumps her RICO-related 

allegations into six “schemes” by various assortments of Defendants: 

 Scheme 1: To corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official 

Department of Education Title IX Proceeding. 

 Scheme 2: To conceal the Taylor Porter Report from an official 

Department of Education Title IX proceeding. 

 Scheme 3: To tamper with a witness in an official Title IX 

proceeding. 

 Scheme 4: To defraud LSU. 

 Scheme 5: To control LSU’s Football Program in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1962(d). 

 Scheme 6: To target and harm Lewis’s business and employment. 

Lewis’s relevant alleged harms include injuries to her employment and 

business, interference with her right to earn a living, and losses of pay raises, 

promotions, bonuses, benefits, a career at “Power 5 Athletics,” and 

professional development opportunities. 

On June 16, 2022, the district court dismissed all of Lewis’s RICO 

claims with prejudice (“June 16 Order”). It first concluded that all claims 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

5 

related to allegations before April 2017 were time-barred, as detailed in the 

December 2 Order. The district court also found that Lewis had failed to 

meet her burden of establishing that her alleged injuries were proximately 

caused by the Defendants’ illegal conduct. 

A month after the RICO claims’ dismissal, Lewis filed a Rule 59(e) 

motion to alter or amend judgment, which was denied on September 29, 

2022. However, the district court agreed to designate the December 2 and 

June 16 Orders as final judgments and to certify those issues for appeal. Lewis 

timely appealed. In the meantime, the parties continue to litigate Lewis’s 

remaining Titles VII and IX claims in the district court. 

II.

We review the district court’s dismissal of Lewis’s complaint de novo. 

Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). 

We accept as true all well-pleaded facts and construe the allegations in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 

(5th Cir. 2020). That said, we “do not accept as true ‘conclusory allegations, 

unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.’” Id. (quoting In re 

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010)). A 

complaint must include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

The remaining issues before us—those regarding amended pleadings and 

reconsideration—are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Ayanbadejo v. 

Chertoff, 517 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2008). 

III.

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

6 

Before we address the issues on appeal regarding (1) time-bar and (2) 

the adequacy of Lewis’s pleadings as to civil RICO, we deny the parties’ 

pending motions. 

A. 

The Taylor Porter Defendants moved on appeal for partial dismissal 

based on res judicata. We deny that motion because its arguments were not 

raised earlier. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., 

Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316–17 (5th Cir. 2000) (“It is a bedrock principle of 

appellate review that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be 

considered.”); but see Energy Dev. Corp. v. St. Martin, 296 F.3d 356, 361 (5th 

Cir. 2002) (“One decision of this court has allowed a party to assert res 

judicata for the first time on appeal . . . . However, . . . this can only be done 

‘where all of the relevant facts are contained in the record before us and all 

are uncontroverted.’”). The Taylor Porter Defendants contend that they 

could not have raised res judicata sooner, but we disagree. Defendants were 

apprised of their ability to craft a cognizable argument when the state court 

issued its June 2022 ruling around the time that the district court came to its 

decision. Defendants could even have briefed res judicata earlier in this appeal

when they filed their extensive responsive briefing. That was almost four 

months before the filing of their instant motion to dismiss. The law and 

general principles of fairness militate against determining res judicata at this 

late juncture. 

Lewis separately moved this court to take judicial notice of (1) 

additional privilege logs, attorney billing records, correspondences, and 

investigative notes involving Defendants during the course of Title IX 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

7 

investigations,2 and (2) the district court’s rulings, dated March 14, 2023 and 

April 25, 2023, on a request for a protective order to “limit[] [Lewis’s] 

discovery to the claims remaining in this matter” and to protect documents 

and testimony “protected by the attorney-client privilege.”3

 

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that a court may take judicial 

notice of an adjudicative fact if such fact is not the subject of reasonable 

dispute, i.e., “that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial 

jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready 

determination by resort to sources” the accuracy of which cannot be 

questioned. Taylor v. Charter Med. Corp., 162 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 1998). 

We deny Lewis’s requests for judicial notice because the facts 

contained within those documents are the subject of reasonable dispute. If 

Lewis sought to include those documents as proof that the district court 

litigation was ongoing, inclusion might be allowed. See United States v. 

Hunsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 285 (5th Cir. 2020). But instead, she seeks to use 

them as “proof” of specific contentions. For example, Lewis seeks to use the 

district court rulings to show that “the Appellees took affirmative steps to 

conceal their RICO conduct from Appellant [and] . . . to corrupt an official 

proceeding of the Department of Education.” Furthermore, Lewis’s first set 

of exhibits are not the kind of “public records” that are often subject to judicial 

notice—rather, they were released because of litigation. See Funk v. Stryker 

Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of “publicly-

_____________________ 

2

 These were all submitted to the record below during the pendency of this appeal. 

Lewis contends that these documents were “extensively referenced” in the SAC. She 

posits that the accuracy of the information contained in these documents cannot reasonably 

be questioned, in part because they were obtained from LSU, “a government agency.” 

3

 Both decisions consider the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege and 

whether Appellant alleged a prima facie case that LSU violated LA. REV. STAT. 14:132(B) 

(second degree concealment of a public record). 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

8 

available documents and transcripts” when “there was no actual asserted 

factual dispute”). As for the rulings of the district court, the parties hotly 

contest the facts contained in those decisions and continue to litigate those 

issues there and possibly on appeal. We decline to take judicial notice of those 

documents but observe that they would do little to assuage our concerns, 

having already taken Lewis’s allegations as true and construing them in the 

light most favorable to her. See Heinze, 971 F.3d at 479.

B. 

We now proceed to the issues on appeal. The district court ruled that 

all of Lewis’s civil RICO claims premised on injuries discovered before April 

8, 2017, were untimely. The parties agree that a four-year statute of 

limitations applies here. See Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., 

Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156 (1987). But they disagree on when that clock should 

start to run. 

It is well established that our circuit abides by the rules of injury 

discovery and separate accrual for RICO claims. “Under the ‘injury 

discovery’ rule, a civil RICO claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or 

should have discovered, the injury” and, “[w]hen a pattern of RICO activity 

causes a continuing series of separate injuries, the ‘separate accrual’ rule 

allows a civil RICO claim to accrue for each injury when the plaintiff 

discovers, or should have discovered, that injury.” Love v. Nat’l Med. Enters., 

230 F.3d 765, 773 (5th Cir.) (quoting Bankers Tr. Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F.2d 

1096, 1102 (2d Cir. 1988)). 

We consider when Lewis was first made aware of her injuries. It 

matters not when she discovered Defendants’ “enterprise racketeering 

scheme”—she alleges that this happened in March 2021 with the release of 

the Husch Blackwell Report. Lewis’s allegations make clear that she was 

made aware of her injuries much earlier. She was subject to overt retaliation 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

9 

after “Miles was cleared of any wrongdoing” by the Taylor Porter Report in 

2013. Lewis alleges numerous harmful workplace interactions from that point 

forward. Given that Lewis filed her original complaint on April 8, 2021, her 

claims for injuries that were discovered—or that should have been 

discovered—before April 8, 2017 are time-barred. 

We next examine whether the principles of “equitable tolling” or 

“fraudulent concealment” rescue Lewis’s pre-2017 claims, both of which 

would alter the start of Lewis’s clock. These concepts are technically 

distinct, but here they greatly overlap. “[E]quitable tolling may be 

appropriate when the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the 

cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his 

rights.” Ramirez v. City of San Antonio, 312 F.3d 178, 183 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). That doctrine is “a narrow exception 

. . . that should be ‘applied sparingly.’” Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 658 

F.3d 452, 457 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Under the fraudulent 

concealment doctrine, “the limitations period is tolled until the plaintiff 

discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the 

concealed fraud.” Love, 230 F.3d at 779. The concealment must be through 

affirmative acts—“the defendant ‘must be guilty of some trick or contrivance 

tending to exclude suspicion and prevent inquiry.’” Texas v. Allan Constr. 

Co., 851 F.2d 1526, 1529 (5th Cir. 1988) (alteration adopted) (citations 

omitted). Fraudulent concealment cannot be applied to toll a plaintiff’s 

claims unless such concealment prevented discovery of the injury. Love, 230 

F.3d at 777. 

Lewis contends that the extraordinary circumstance which stood in 

the way of her filing suit sooner was Defendants’ concerted deception of 

Miles’s legal liability. Lewis’s key allegation regarding this delay is that 

Defendant Vicki Crochet, then LSU’s counsel, told Lewis at a formal 

meeting that Miles had not violated Title IX because the student workers 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

10 

were of consenting age. Lewis contends that she relied on that “act of 

deception” in her decision not to investigate or file suit sooner. However, 

Crochet was simply conveying her legal opinion regarding Miles. See Farmer 

v. D & O Contractors, 640 F. Appx. 302, 307 (5th Cir. 2016) (rejecting the 

argument that a plaintiff’s mistaken reliance on the FBI’s representation 

entailed a sufficiently extraordinary circumstance). Crochet was not Lewis’s 

counsel, and Lewis does not allege that she thought Crochet represented her. 

Considering the circumstances and obviousness of Miles’s misconduct, 

Lewis could have sought her own legal counsel or further questioned 

Crochet’s conclusion. At best, Lewis engaged in a single overt step to 

determine whether suit was necessary when she asked Crochet about the 

investigation of Miles. This lack of diligence does little to determine the 

lengths to which Defendants would have gone to prevent Lewis’s timely 

filing of suit. Her inaction cannot be explained away by any alleged deception. 

Lewis also contends that Defendants “fraudulently concealed” the 

Taylor Porter Report by keeping it off-site at the law firm. She claims that she 

was thus prevented from learning the information she needed to file her claim 

within the statutory period. However, Lewis does not contend that she would 

have acted differently had the report been physically maintained on LSU’s 

premises. Neither does she allege any diligence on her part to uncover a nonpublic report had it been located elsewhere—for example, in the athletics 

department. “[I]n light of the consensus of authority, we conclude that 

‘fraudulent concealment’ in the context of civil RICO embodies a ‘due 

diligence’ requirement.” Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 195–96 

(1997). 

Lewis’s claims based on injuries that were discovered, or should have 

been discovered, before April 8, 2017, were appropriately dismissed with 

prejudice. Any further allegations by Lewis cannot change the fact that she 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

11 

knew of her injuries as early as 2013, a fact pertinent to her pending 

employment-related claims. 

C. 

The district court also determined that Lewis’s allegations fail to 

demonstrate that her injuries were proximately caused by the alleged predicate 

acts. We agree that Lewis cannot overcome that deficiency. 

Pursuant to § 1964, a civil RICO plaintiff must show (1) a violation of 

§ 1962,(2) an injury to his or her business or property, and (3) that such injury 

was proximately caused by a RICO violation. Cullom v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 

859 F.2d 1211, 1214-1215 (5th Cir. 1988). The independent requirements of 

injury and causation are referred to as prudential standing. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. 

v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126 (2014). The causation 

requirement consists of both but-for and proximate causation. Proximate 

causation examines “whether the harm alleged has a sufficiently close 

connection to the conduct the statute prohibits.” Id. at 133. This court has 

made clear that “plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged [RICO] 

violation ‘led directly’ to the injuries.” Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enters., 

L.L.C., 983 F.3d 779, 784-85 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 

Lewis can only establish causation by showing that her injuries were 

directly caused by the alleged predicate acts. A general—and astute—theme 

of the district court’s analysis is that “the RICO proximate cause 

requirement is designed to deny recovery in situations such as this one ‘when 

too many unexpected things had to happen between the defendant’s 

wrongdoing and the plaintiff’s injury, in order for the injury to occur.’” That 

observation rings undeniably true. Lewis alleges injuries that are more 

directly traced to her employment claims. Beyond that, most of the relevant 

allegations affected others, not Lewis: 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

12 

Predicate Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (concealing documents or 

obstructing official proceedings): Lewis was not the victim of Defendants’ 

“concealment” of the Taylor Porter Report from the public and from LSU’s 

Board of Supervisors (the “Board”). Lewis alleges that Defendants’ conduct 

interfered with her right to earn a living, exposing her to lawsuits, and leading 

to losses of pay raises, promotions, bonuses, benefits, her career in Power 5 

Athletics, and professional development opportunities. That concealment, 

when accepted as true, instead harmed the Board and LSU (opening those 

entities to liability), the alleged victims (who would not have found justice), 

and third parties, such as USA Today (who have an interest in uncovering 

such wrongdoing). Lewis also alleges that Defendants improperly obstructed 

and influenced a Title IX investigation against Lewis herself by fraudulently 

instituting such proceedings, giving false or misleading testimony, or 

otherwise concealing allegations. Although, in this instance, Lewis is the 

subject of any alleged harms that would flow from an adverse determination 

of that investigation, the causal chain is too attenuated. The investigation was 

complex and included allegations that would have existed regardless of the 

alleged obstruction. This is one situation in which causation is broken by 

several layers of uncertain variables. See BCS Servs., Inc. v. Heartwood 88, 

LLC, 637 F.3d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[H]ere is where the doctrine of 

proximate cause does its work—too many unexpected things had to happen 

between the defendant’s wrongdoing and the plaintiff’s injury, in order for 

the injury to occur.”). 

Predicate Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (retaliation against a witness, victim, 

or an informant): Lewis alleges that Defendants illegally settled with a 

student complainant, engaging in acts such as convincing a professor to allow 

a student complainant to retake an examination and dissuading testimony at 

an official Title IX proceeding. We accept these allegations as true; but, 

again, other parties—not Lewis—were the ones proximately injured by those 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

13 

actions. Her own injuries are premised on retaliation for reporting Miles, 

which would have transpired regardless of those predicate acts. 

Predicate Acts - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (mail fraud and wire fraud):

As for the alleged mail fraud and wire fraud, Lewis did not rely on 

misrepresentations from Defendants to her detriment. Nor was she directly 

involved in any of the alleged mails or wires containing misrepresentations. 

The one exception is Lewis’s receipt of the final Title IX Investigation report, 

but she fails to allege how simply receiving such a report led directly to her 

property and professional damages. Even when accepted as true, those 

predicate acts proximately caused injury to others, not to Lewis. For 

example, LSU is the clear victim of fraud regarding the Taylor Porter 

Defendants’ fraudulent legal bills. Lewis’s alleged professional harms are not 

traceable to that predicate act. 

Predicate Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (interstate travel in aid of 

racketeering): This last predicate act is plainly unrelated to Lewis’s injuries. 

Lewis alleges that specific Defendants traveled interstate to “bribe” a 

student complainant to drop her claims against Miles. Lewis was not the 

direct victim of any harms from that alleged act, and our prior discussion of 

retaliation rings true here. Regardless of this predicate act’s truth, Lewis 

would have suffered the same harms. 

In conclusion, it is more accurate to say that Lewis’s injuries are 

rooted in workplace retaliation because of her reporting of sexual 

misconduct. Lewis unsurprisingly struggles to contort her pleadings to fit the 

difficult mold of civil RICO.4

 

_____________________ 

4

 Having affirmed the district court on the foregoing, we also conclude that the 

district court acted within its discretion when it denied Lewis’s motion to alter or amend 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-30670 

14 

IV. 

We DENY the motions on appeal and AFFIRM the district court. 

_____________________ 

the judgment. Her motion did not present new evidence or law, and she presents no 

additional argument as to this issue on appeal. 

Case: 22-30670 Document: 00516928807 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/12/2023