FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 24, 2004 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 16383 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 3 7 2 - CV - O C- 1 0 - G RJ M E R E D I T H T . R A N E Y , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A L L S T A T E I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , A L L S T A T E F L O R I D I A N I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , O C A L A W O M E N 'S C E N T E R , I N C ., A W A R E W O M A N C E N T E R F O R C H O I C E , I N C ., E D W A R D W . W I N D L E , J R ., e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M A Y 24, 2004) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: M e r e di th R a ne y appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s a l of hi s c om pl a i ntf

or ext ort i on un der the fe dera l R ac ket ee r I nfl uenced and C orruptO rgani za t i on s A ct ( “ R I C O ” ) , 18 U . S . C . § 1961 e ts e q. R a ne y c ha r ge d s e ve r a l abor t i on pr ovi de r s a nd hi s ow n i ns ur a nc e c om pa ny w i th a c ons pi r a c y t o e xt or tm one y f r om hi m thr ough the fi l i ng of m al i ci ou s l aw sui t s. B ec ause the fi l i ng of a l aw sui tm ay no tst at e a cl ai m for e xt ort i on un der the fe dera l R IC O st atut es , w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt di sm i ss al of R aney ’ s c om pl ai ntun der F eder al R ul e of P roce du re 12 (b)( 6). F o rs e v e r a l y e a r s , R a n e y h a s a c tiv e ly o p p o s e d th e p r o v is io n o f ab o r tio n in F lo r id a b y e n g a g in g in n u m e r o u s a c tiv itie s n e a rth e e n tr a n c e s to ab o r tio n c lin ic s . S ee , e. g. , R aney v. A w ar e W om an C tr. for C ho i ce , Inc. , 22 4 F . 3d 12 66 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). In 1 9 9 8 an d 1 9 9 9 , th ree ab o rt i o n cl i n i cs fi l ed sep arat e l aw su i t s ag ai n st R aney , ac cusi ng hi m of vi ol at i ng the F re edom of A cc es s t o C l i ni c E ntra nces A ct (“ F A C E ”) , 18 U . S . C . § 2 48 , as w el l as vari ou s other s t atut ory and com m on l aw i nj uri es . In re spon se t o these l aw sui t s, R aney ’ s hom eow ner’ s pol i cy i nsurer , A lls ta te , is s u e d a r e s e r v a tio n o f r ig h ts le tte ro u tlin in g its p o s itio n o n c o v e r a g e . A l l st at e a l so fi l ed a decl ar at ory j ud gm entac t i on se eki ng t o est abl i sh thati tow edThis is common practicein Florida statecourts. See, e .g ., State Fa rm Fire& Ca s. Co. v. 1 Cronk, 530 So. 2d 445 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1988). 3 no du ty t o d ef

end R aney . E ac h o f these l aw sui t s w as subsequent l y di sm i ss ed

1 w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e , a n d A lls ta te w ith d r e w its d e c la r a to ry ju d g m e n t s u it. R a n e y f ile d s u it in f

e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t c h a r g in g e a c h o f th e c lin ic s a n d h is in s u r a n c e c o m p a n y w ith m a lic io u s p r o s e c u tio n , e x to r tio n a n d c o n s p ir a c y to d e s tr o y h im a n d h is b u s in e s s . A c c o r d in g to R a n e y , A lls ta te s ig n a le d its c o m p lic ity i n the ba s e l e s s s ui t s by i s s ui ng a r e s e r va t i on of r i ght s l e tt e rr a the rtha n de ny i ng c ove r a ge outr i ght . R a ne y a r gue d tha tA l l s t a t e be ne f i t s f r om abor t i on by a voi di ng he a l thc a r e c l a i m s i tw oul d othe rw i s e pa y ove rthe c our s e of a c hi l d’ s l i f

e . T he de f e nda nt s r e s ponde d tha tR a ne y ha d f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m be c a us e , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , the f

i l i ng of a l a w s ui tc a nnotf

or m a pr e di c a t e a c tunde rR I C O . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended g ra nt i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on , and the di stri ct c our ta dopt e d tha tr e c om m e nda t i on. W e r evi ew de no vo the deci si on t o d i sm i ss a c om pl ai ntfor f ai l ure t o st at e a c l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f m a y be gr a nt e d. L ow e l l v. A m . C y a na m i d C o. , 177 F . 3d 12 28 , 12 29 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W e a cc eptthe fa ctual al l egat i on s i n the com pl ai ntas true a nd construe them i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the pl ai nt i ff . R ob ert s v. F l a. P ow er& L i gh tC o. , 14 6 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 07 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). In order t o survi ve a m ot i on t o di s m i s s i n a c i vi l R I C O c a s e , a pl a i nt i f f m us ts how a “ pa tt e rn ofWe alsore je c t any po tenti al st ate -l aw e xtor

tio n o r m ail f

ra ud c laims a s p re dic atea c ts in 2 this case. Ne ither Raney ’s complaint nor his appe llate brief s identify any Florida statute that 4 r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty ” by a l l e gi ng tha tthe de f e nda nt s c om m i tt e d tw o qua l i f y i ng p r e d ic a te a c ts . R e p u b lic o f P a n a m a v . B C C I H o ld in g s , 1 1 9 F .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 4 8 - 4 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 97 ). T hi s r equi re s thata pl ai nt i ff al l ege f ac t s thatsupp ortea ch st atut ory e le m e n t o f

a v io la tio n o f

o n e o f th e s ta te o rf

e d e r a l la w s d e s c r ib e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) . I n th i s c a s e , R a n e y ’ s R I C O c l a i m d e p e n d s u p o n h i s ab i l i ty t o s h o w a vi ol a t i on of

the H obbs A c t , w hi c h ba r s i nt e r f e r e nc e i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e by m e a ns of e xt or t i on. S e e 18 U . S . C . § 1951. A l though R a ne y a l l e ge s va r i ous s p e c if ic c o m p la in ts in c lu d in g m a il f r a u d , e x to r tio n , a n d m a lic io u s p r o s e c u tio n , a ll of the s e r e l a t e t o the a l l e ge d c ons pi r a c y t o e xt or tm one y thr ough the f i l i ng of m a lic io u s la w s u its . W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t R a n e y ’s a r g u m e n t is f or e c l os e d by ourr e c e ntde c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e nde r gr a f t , 297 F . 3d 1198 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). In P endergraf t , the defendant s a l l egedl y threa t ened t o sue a coun ty gov ernm entby fa l se l y c l ai m i ng thatthe C ou nty C hai rm an had threa t ened vi ol e nc e a ga i ns tthe i rabor t i on c l i ni c . W e he l d tha tne i the rthe thr e a tt o l i t i ga t e nor th e f ab r ic a tio n o f

e v id e n c e b e h in d th e la w s u it m a d e th e a c tio n “w r o n g f u l” w ith in the m ea ni ng of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1 and there fore coul d n otbe a predi ca t e a ctun der R I C O . I d. a t1207. R a ne y ’ s c l a i m s a r e the r e f or e ba rr e d by thi s de c i s i on. 2wo uld

g iveri seto a

fe deral RI CO vio latio n. Mo re ov e r, in o rde r f or a statee xtor

tio n o ff e ns eto qualify as a predicate ac t under the f ederal RI CO statute, the conduc t must be capa ble of be ing g e neri c ally

c la ssi fi e d a s e xtor

tio nate : th at is , “ ob tainingso me thingof valuefrom a

no ther with his consent induced by

the wrong ful use of f

orce , fea r or thre ats.” Sche idler v. Nat’l Org . for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 409-410 (2003) (quotingthe Model Penal Code) . In light of our decision in Pendergraf

t, we doubt that the filingof a la wsuit could ever

be “wrong ful” for

the purp os e s o f RI CO . Se ealsoI .S. JosephCo. v. J. L a uritzen A/S, 75 1 F .2 d 2 65 , 2 67 -6 8 ( 8th Cir.1984) (thre ats to sue, even if groundless or in bad f aith, may be tortious under statelaw but do not come within the fe deral ext ortion statute). Simi larly, we he ld in Pendergraf t that, absent an intent to dec eive the vic tim, the “mailing of litigation documents, even perjurious ones, did not violate the mail-fraud statute.”297 F.3d at 12 09 . Ra ney do e s n ot alle g eany

int e nt to d e c e ivehim , a

nd hethere fo rec ann ot e sta

bli shmail fra ud as a predicate ac t for his RI CO claims. 5 R aney ar gu es thatP endergraf tappl i es on l y t o threa t s of l i t i gat i on , ra ther than actual l i t i gat i on . W e r ej ec tthi s a rgum ent . A l tho ug h P endergraf ti nv ol ved onl y thr e a t e ne d l i t i ga t i on, the r e a s oni ng i n tha topi ni on appl i e s e qua l l y t o l i t i ga t i on th a t h a s a lr e a d y c o m m e n c e d . W e n o te d th a t c o u r ts p o s s e s s a d e q u a te p r o c e d u r e s to di s t i ngui s h va l i d c l a i m s f r om i nva l i d c l a i m s a nd he l d tha tC ongr e s s di d noti nt e nd t o puni s h c i t i z e ns m e r e l y f ora c c e s s i ng the l e ga l s y s t e m . I d. a t1206- 07. W e f ound o u rsel v es “ tro u b l ed b y any u s e o f th is f e d e r a l c r im in a l s ta tu te to p u n is h c iv il litig a n ts .” I d . a t 1 2 0 7 ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . W e n o te d th a t “a llo w in g litig a n ts to b e c h a r g e d w ith e x to r tio n w o u ld o p e n y e t a n o th e rc o lla te r a l w a y f o rlitig a n ts to att ac k o ne another. ” I d. W e a l so expres se d con ce rn abou ttra nsform i ng every s t a t e - l a w m a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on a c t i on i nt o a f e de r a l c r i m e . I d. a t1207- 08. A l l of these concerns appl y t o actual l i t i gat i on w i th add ed force . F urtherm ore, other court s have e xp l i ci t l y app l i ed thi s r ea soni ng t o l i t i gat i on thathas a l re ady bee nThe sole c ase c ited by Raney, Florida

Evergreen Foliag e v. DuPont, 135 F.Supp. 2d 3 1271 (S.D. Fla . 2001), involved a pattern of witness intimidation, fraudulent depositions, and c on c e alment o f data

and do c uments , a

nd , in any c a se , p re date d Pend e rgraft . 6 fi l ed. S ee , e. g. , D ec k v . E ng i neer ed L am i nat es , 34 9 F . 3d 12 53 , 12 58 (10th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t i ng P endergraf tand rej ec t i ng “ m er i t l es s l i t i gat i on ” a s apredi ca t e a ct un der R IC O w hen the sui thad actual l y bee n fi l ed). 3 W e a l s o r e

j e c tR a ne y ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve e xe r c i s e d s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe r e m a i ni ng s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s . T he d e c is io n to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rp e n d a n t s ta te c la im s r e s ts w i thi n the di s c r e t i on of

the di s tr i c tc our t . M e r ge ns v. D r e y f oos , 166 F . 3d 1114, 1119 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . W e ha ve e nc our a ge d di s tr i c tc our t s t o di s m i s s a ny r e m a i ni ng s t a t e c l a i m s w he n, a s he r e , the f e de r a l c l a i m s ha ve be e n di s m i s s e d pr i or to tr ia l. L .A . D r ap e r& S o n v . W h e e lab r a to r - F ry e , I n c ., 7 3 5 F .2 d 4 1 4 , 4 2 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1984) . N othi ng i n thi s r e c or d s ugge s t s the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n d ecl i n i n g t o ex erci se j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er th e rem ai n i n g cl ai m s.

AF F I R ME D.