## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e5,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
N A D I N E G I L L M O R , i ndi vi dual l yand a s tru ste e o f

th e N a d in e F a u se tt Gi l l morTru s t ; M I LTON O. BI TNER C O M PA N Y , a U t ah corpor at i on; E V E R G R E E N D E V E L O P M E N T , a U t a h l i m i t e d p a r tn e r s h i p ; E L L A M. P A C E , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; D W A Y N E M. PA C E , a trus t ee of

the D w ayne M . Pa c e Re v o c a b l e Tru s t ; J OA N J . PACE, tru ste e o f

th e Jo a n J. P a c e R e v o c a b le T ru st; G A L E W . P A C E , an in d iv id u a l; K A T H L E E N D . P A C E , an in d iv id u a l; a n d AN DER SON DEV ELOPM ENT, L L C , a U t a h l i m i t e d l i a b i l i ty c o m p a n y, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. D A V ID L . T H O M A S ; D A V ID ALLEN ; M I CH AEL B AR I LLE; S HAU NA K ERR ; BOB RI CHER; KEN NETH W OO LSTE NH ULM E; T O M B R E N N A N ; C Y N T H IA CA L L AWAY; M AX GR E E NHAL GH; BR UC E T AYL OR ; DONNA VAN BU RE N; a n d M I KE WAS HI NGT ON, as i nd i vidual s, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 4124

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct of

U t ah ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CV- 8 2 3 - P GC)T he H onor abl e J ul i e A . R obi ns on, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge, * D i s tr i ctof K ans as , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. “Landow ner s ” r efe r s col l ect i vel yt o: N adi ne G i l l m or( i ndi vi dual l yand as 1 tru s t e e o f

th e N a d i n e F a u s e t tG i l l m o rT ru s t ) , t h e M i l t o n O . B i tn e rC o m p a n y, E ver gr een D evel opm ent , E l l a M . Pace, D w ayne M . Pace ( as t rus t ee of t he D w ayne M . Pace Revocabl e Trus t ) , J oan J . Pace ( as t rus t ee of t he J oan J . Pace R e v o c a b le T ru st), G a le W . P a c e , K a th e rin e D . P a c e , an d A n d e rso n D e v e lo p m e n t, LL C. “ C o u n tyO fficia ls” re fe rs c o llec tiv e lyto : D a v id L . T h o m a s, C h ief D e p u ty 2 C o u n tyA tto rn e yfo r S u m m it C o u n ty ; D a v id A llen , D ire c to r o f th e S u m m it C ountyD epart m entof C om m uni tyD evel opm ent ; M i chae l B ar i l l e, Pl anni ng D i r ect orof the Sum m i tC ountyD epart m entof C om m uni tyD evel opm ent ; B ob R i cher , K enneth W ool s t enhul m e, and Shauna K err , m ember s of the B oar d of C o u n ty C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f S u m m i tC o u n ty; T o m B r e n n a n , C yn th i a C a l l a w a y, B ru c e T a y lo r, an d M ich a e l W a sh in g to n , m e m b e rs o f th e S n y d e rv ill e B a sin

(c o n tin u e d ...) - 2 - B ru c e R . B a ir d (A la in C . B a lm a n n o w ith h im o n th e b ri e fs ), H u tc h in g s , B a ir d , & Jones P L L C , S al tL ake C i ty , U t ah fo r the P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . J odyK . B urnett( G eor ge A . H untand R obertC . K el l er , W i l l i ams & H unt ; and S tev e n W . A llred , W o o lste rn h u lm e , K e rr a n d R ich e r, S a lt L a k e C ity , U tah , w ith her on the bri efs) , W i l l i am s & H un t , S al tL ake C i ty , U t ah fo r the D efen dan t sA pp el l ees. B efor e LU CE RO , M UR P HY , C i r cui tJ udges , and RO B I NS ON , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * LU CE RO , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s cas e pr es ent s the l at es tbatt l e i n a l egal w arbei ng w aged bys ever al land o w n ers a g ains t Su m m itC o u n ty , U tah a n d it s zo n ing reg im e. L an d o w n ers 1 br oughts ui tagai ns ts ever al C ountyO ffi ci al s al l egi ng thatt hei radmi ni s tr at i on of 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on; and M ax G r eenha l gh and D onna V an B ur en, form er m e m b e rs o f

th e S n y d e rv ille B a s in P la n n in g C o m m is s io n . - 3 - Sum m i tC ounty ’ s zoni ng or di nance s cons t i tut es a patt ern of ext or t i on i n vi ol at i on o f th e R a c k e te e r I n flu e n c e d a n d C o rr u p t O rg a n iz a tio n s A c t ( “ R IC O ” ), 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 2 . C o n c lu d in g th a t C o u n tyO fficia ls h a d c o m m itt e d n o ill e g a l p re d ica te a c ts as r equi r ed t o s uppor ta R I C O cl ai m , t he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent agai ns tL andow ner s and di s m i s s ed thei rcas e. W e AF F I RM . I S u m m it C o u n ty ’s z o n in g sc h e m e is a d m in iste re d b yth e B o a rd o f C o u n ty C o m m issi o n ers (“B C C ”). B C C C o m m issi o n ers, of w h o m there are three , are e lec ted o fficia ls w h o se rv e fo u r-y e a r te rm s. In 1 9 9 5 , the B C C p a ss e d C o u n ty O r di nance N o. 268, es t abl i s hi ng the Sny dervi l l e B as i n as an i ndepende ntpl anni ng di s tr i ct , and cr eat i ng the Sny dervi l l e B as i n Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on ( “SB PC ”) . T he S B P C ’s sev en m em b ers a re a p p o inted b ythe B C C an d serv e a t th at bo d y ’s p l e a s u r e . Al th o u g h th e S BP C h a s t h e p o we rt o a p p r o v e s o me p l a n s , t h e BCC hol ds fi nal author i tyoverm or e compl ex deve l opm ent s . I n 1997, aft ernum er ous p u b lic h e a rin g s w e re h e ld b yth e S B P C a n d th e B C C , the B C C a d o p ted C o u n ty O rd in a n c e N o . 3 2 1 , es tab lish in g a n e w G e n e ra l P lan fo r z o n in g in th e S n y d e rv ill e B as i n. Fol l ow i ng addi t i onal publ i c i nput , t he B C C pas s ed a c om pr ehens i ve D evel opm entC ode i n 1998. B oth the G ener al Pl an and the D evel opm entC ode- 4 -

w ere am en d ed in 2 0 0 4 , b u t m aintain th e c h ara cterist ics w ith w h ich L an d o w n ers t ake i s s ue. A s c o d ified in th e G e n e ra l P lan a n d D e v e lo p m e n t C o d e , S u m m it C o u n ty e m p lo y s a “ p e rfo rm a n c e z o n in g ” o r “ in c e n tiv e z o n in g ” sy ste m . U n d e r th is s y s t em, a r el at i vel yl ow “bas e dens i ty ” has been e s t abl i s hed thr oughoutt he Sny dervi l l e B as i n, gener al l yal l ow i ng devel opm ent s of l es s t han one uni tper20 acr es . O n l ands des i gnat ed “e nvi r onm ent al l ys ens i t i ve, ” deve l opm enti s l i m i t ed to o n e u n it p e r 4 0 a c re s. B ym a in tain in g lo w b a se d e n sities , the C o u n tya im s to pr es erve “a l i fes ty l e thati s bas ed pr i nci pal l yon m ount ai n, r es or t , and r ecr eat i on qual i t i es ; and w her e pr es ervat i on and s t ew ar ds hi p of the B as i n’ s natur al r es our ces a n d sc e n ic q u a lit ies a re p a ra m o u n t.” C o n c e n tra ted n o d e s o f h ig h -d e n sity d e v e lo p m e n t a re p e rm itte d a t “ a p p ro p ri a te lo c a tio n s .” O ver l ay i ng thes e bas e ent i t l ement s i s a “D evel opm entPot ent i al M atr i x” ( “M atr i x”) , byw hi ch: S u m m it C o u n tyw ill o ffe r re a so n a b le d e n sityin c e n tiv e s fo r p rojec ts w hi ch furtherpr om ot e the goal s and obj ect i ves of [the G ener al ] Pl an, ther ebypr oduci ng t angi bl e comm uni tybenef i t s . D ens i tyi ncent i ves w i l l be co nsi dered fo r appropri at e: a) envi ronm ental enh ancem ents ; b) t ax bas e and e conomi c enha ncement s ; c) t r ans ferof deve l opm ent rig h ts f ro m les s d e sira b le d e v e lo p m e n t sites to m o re a p p ro p ria te s i t es ; d) publ i c fa ci l i t i es and ameni t i es t hatexce ed a s peci fi c pr oj ect [s i c] r equi r ement s ; e) open s pace t hatexce ed [s i c] pr oj ect r equi r ement s ; f) r es tr i ct ed affor dabl e hous i ng; and g) compl i ance w i th ap propri at e desi gn pri ncipl es.- 5 -

B ye n ter in g in to v o lu n tar yd e v e lo p m e n t ag re e m e n ts, d e v e lo p e rs a re p e rm itt e d to bui l d atdens i t i es thatw oul d nototherw i s e be pe r m i t t ed – i n s om e ca s es up t o fi ve uni t s per acr e. I n excha nge fordens i tybonus es , l ocal devel oper s have offer ed a var i etyof contr i but i ons , i ncl udi ng: cons ervat i on eas ement s , s chool fundi ng, new p u b lic tr a ils , in c re a s e d o p e n s p a c e , w e tla n d s p re s e rv a tio n , a n d n e w p u b lic p a rk s . BCC devel opm entagr eement s typi cal l yi ncl ude a pr ovi s i on forbi ddi ng the devel operfr om part i ci pat i ng i n anyl egal chal l enge t o the C ounty ’ s zoni ng ordi nan ces. L a n d o w n e rs h a v e b ro u g h t th re e se p a ra te la w su its c h a llen g in g th e v a lid ity of thi s zoni ng s cheme i n U t ah s t at e court : G i l l m orv. Sum m i tC ounty , N o. 040500427; E ver gr een D ev. v. Sum m i tC ounty , N o. 050500059; and Ever gr een D ev. v. Sum m i tC ounty , N o. 050500112. O n O ct ober3, 2005, t heyfi l ed a s epar at e, 644- par agr aph compl ai nt in fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt, alle g in g th a t C o u n ty O ffi ci al s engage d i n a patt ern of r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty“thr ough t he enfor cement of i l l egal and/ ori nval i d gener al pl an and z oni ng or di nance s and otheri l l egal pr act i ces , t he i m pos i t i on and col l ect i on of i l l egal s chool i m pactfee s and the e x to rt io n o f

[ tr a n s fe ra b le d e v e lo p m e n t r ig h ts ], a ll in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1962( c) . ” I n s uppor tof thi s cl ai m , L andow ner s l i s t41 pr edi cat e ac t s of al l eged ra c k e te e ri n g . Sever al of thes e al l eged pr edi cat e ac t s ar e vol unt arydevel opm ent a g re e m e n ts b e tw e e n th e C o u n tya n d v a rio u s d e v e lo p e rs b yw h ich th e C o u n tyF o r th e sa k e o f c lar ityw e a d o p t th e tit les g iv e n to th e a lleg e d p re d ica te 3 a c t s b y L a n d o w n e r s , d e s p i t e th e i rq u e s t i o n a b l e a c c u r a c y. - 6 - obt ai ned comm uni ty benef i t s i n excha nge for dens i ty bonus es . N one of the ci t ed agr eement s i nvol ve Landow ner s . A m ong the l i s t ed pr edi cat e ac t s , onl yei ght i ncident s i nv olve L and ow ners: ( 1) “Ever gr een School I m pactFee Let t er ” – O n J anuary30, 2002, 3 E ver gr een D evel opm ent( “Ever gr een” ) s ubm i t t ed a Sket ch Pl an For m t o the Co u n tyr e g a r d i n g i t s p r o p o s e d Qu a rryM e a d o ws S u b d i v i s i o n . S o me t i me ther eaf t er , C hi ef D eputyC ountyA t t orneyD avi d L . T hom as m etw i th couns el for E ver gr een. Fol l ow i ng thatm eet i ng, T hom as s enta l et t ert o couns el addr es s i ng tw o i s s ues : W hetherthe s ket ch pl an r es ul t ed i n ves t i ng of the 1998 or di nance ; a n d w h e th e r th e C o u n tyc o u ld re stric t th e d e v e lo p m e n t to fe w e r th a n 3 6 u n its
w h e n it h a d p re v io u slya p p ro v e d a to tal o f 3 6 u n ites a t a s im ilar d e v e lo p m e n t, n a me d Qu a r r yM o u n t a i n Ra n c h . T h o ma s l i s t e d 1 2 d i ffe r e n c e s b e twe e n t h e t wo devel opm ent s , i ncl udi ng the fol l ow i ng: “Q uarryM ount ai n devel oped a s chool b u s s t o p . Qu a r r yM o u n t a i n i s o ffe r i n g a s c h o o l c o n tr i b u t i o n . T h e s e a r e t wo d iffe re n t w a y s o f

a d d re s s in g s c h o o l im p a c ts .” (2 ) “ G ill m o r S tate m e n t” – In th e Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 4 e d iti o n o f th e S a lt L a k e C ity T rib u n e , T h o m a s is q u o ted a s s tatin g th a t th e C o u n ty ’s D e v e lo p m e n t C o d e “ is fa ir , ra tio n a l a n d le g a l a n d w e w ill d e fe n d it.”- 7 -

( 3) “D C D / E ver gr een M eet i ng” – D avi d A l l en, D i r ect orof the D epart m ent of C om m uni tyD evel opm ent , M i chae l B ar i l l e, Pl anni ng D i r ect orof the D epart m entof C om m uni tyD evel opm ent , and W i l l i am P r at t , C ountyPl anner , m et wi th E v e r g r e e n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 , t o d i s c u s s t h e Qu a rryM e a d o ws appl i cat i on. I n thatm eet i ng, A l l en and Bar i l l e expl ai ned thati n or dert o devel op bey ond the pr operty ’ s bas e dens i ty , t he deve l oper s w oul d l i kel yneed t o pr ovi de add i t i on al com m un i tyand recr eat i on al ben efi t s. ( 4) Q uarr yM eadow s “W or k Ses s i ons ” – O n A pr i l 22, 2003 and aga i n on A ugus t26, 2003, E ver gr een r epr es ent at i ves m etw i th SB PC and i t s s t aff r egar di ng the Q uarryM eadow s pr opos al . A tboth m eet i ngs , t he comm i s s i oner s i ndi cat ed th a t ad d iti o n a l co m m u n itya n d n e ig h b o rh o o d b e n e fits w o u ld b e n e c e ss a ryto achi eve appr oval of Ever gr een’ s des i r ed dens i tybonus es . A tt he fi r s tm eet i ng, comm i s s i oner s al s o ques t i oned w hetherE ver gr een’ s pr opos ed s chool contr i but i on w as suffi ci ent t o just i fyi t s desi red den si tybo nu ses. ( 5) “Q uarr yM eadow s St aff R eport ” – O n A ugus t12, 2003, Pr at tforw ar ded a s t aff r eportt o t he SB PC des cr i bi ng the Q uarryM eadow s Sket ch Pl an. T he reportno t es that A l l en an d B ari l l e rai sed t he fo l l ow i ng con cerns, am on g o thers,
r egar di ng t he pr opos ed deve l opm ent : “the nee d form or e comm uni tyand nei ghborhood r ecr eat i onal benef i t s [and] t he r emoval of m aj ordel i neat ed
w etl an d s fro m p rop o sed lots. ” It also ind icates tha t th ese co n ce rns w ere “addr es s ed bythe appl i cant . ” Fi nal l y , t he r eportdes cr i bes t he pr opos ed- 8 -

comm uni t yand nei ghborhood benef i t s t o i ncl ude publ i c tr ai l s , an enha nced stream corr i do r, and play groun d/gatheri ng area am on g o ther ben efi t s. (6 ) “ B itn e r-R e d h a w k L e tter”

– O n S e p tem b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , A llen re sp o n d e d to an i nqui ryfr om r epr es ent at i ves of the B i tnerC om panyr egar di ng the deve l opm ent po t enti al of the “R edh aw k” p arcel . T hat l et t er s t at es: W i thouta tr ans ferof dens i tyand as s um i ng the des i gn of the pr oj ect m e e ts a ll o f

th e e ig h t lan d u se a n d c o m m u n ityb e n e fit crite ria out l i ned i n t he D evel opm entM atr i x, t he maxi m um dens i tyon Par cel 9 w o u l d b e 1 u n i tp e r1 7 . 5 a c r e s w h i c h w o u l d b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 u n it s (th is al so assu m es th ere are n o sen sit ive lan d s o n the p arc el). W hi l e thi s m ayappea rt o be l ow , dens i ty , i ti s m yunder s t andi ng that a dja c e n t p a rc e ls in M o rg a n C o u n ty ar e z o n e d 1 u n it p e r 1 6 0 a c re s . H opeful l ythi s hel ps y ou under s t and myi ni t i al r eadi ng of the d o c u m e n ts a n d D e v e lo p m e n t C o d e a s it r e la te s to th e s e tw o p a rc e ls . I w oul d be gl ad t o fur therdi s cus s t hi s w i th y ou i f nee ded. L andow ner s do notal l ege thatthi s s t at ementw as i nacc ur at e. (7 ) “ P a c e M e e tin g ” – In th e S p rin g o f 2 0 0 4 , E lla M . P a c e a n d a re a l es tate br okerr epr es ent i ng the Pace fami l ym etw i th B ar i l l e and A l l en t o di s cus s t he d e v e lo p m e n t p o ten tial o f P a c e ’s p ro p e rty . A t th a t m e e tin g , B a rille c o rre c tly s t at ed thatunderthe D evel opm entC ode’ s bas e- dens i tyal l ow ance , t he par cel coul d be deve l oped w i th no m or e than ei ghts i ngl e- fami l yuni t s . H e further i nform ed them t hatthe w et l ands por t i on of the pr opertyw oul d have t o be
m aintaine d as o p en sp ac e, w h ich L an d o w n ers c o n tend is co n tr aryto the C o d e’s tex t.- 9 -

( 8 ) “ De n i a l Le t t e r ”

– On No v e mb e r3 , 2 0 0 4 , An d e r s o n De v e l o p me n t , LL C, on behal f of s ever al L andow ner s , s ubm i t t ed appl i cat i ons t o devel op s ever al p rop erti es. N ad ine G il lm o r did the s am e. A tt ac h ed to the se a p p li ca ti o n s w ere l ett er s as s ert i ng thatSum m i tC ounty ’ s D evel opm entC ode i s uncons t i tut i onal , and vi ol at es both s t at e and feder al l aw . I n the abs ence of val i d zoni ng r egul at i ons , t he l ett er s cont i nued, the C ountyw as r equi r ed t o appr ove the appl i cat i ons as l ong as theyconform t o s t at e l aw . A l l en r es ponded w i th a l et t ernot i ng thatt he zoni ng regul at i on s w ere l egall yado pted and con t i nu ed to be i n effect . B ecause L andow ner s ’ appl i cat i ons di d notcompl yw i th the appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , A l l en i nform ed them t hatthei rappl i cat i ons coul d notbe pr oces s ed. O n D ec em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , C o u n tyO ffici als fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , ar gui ng: ( 1) L andow ner s coul d notpr ove the exi s t ence of any p re d ica te a c ts; (2 ) L a n d o w n e rs la c k e d R IC O sta n d in g ; (3 ) C o u n tyO fficia ls h e ld a b so lu te im m u n ityf

ro m su it; a n d (4 ) C o u n tyO fficia ls h e ld q u a lifie d im m u n ity fr om s ui t . I n i t s r es pons e, L andow ner s s t at ed: “Pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enge t o the
z o n in g a n d d e v e lo p m e n t p la n s a n d c o d e s is a n o th e r c a s e in a n o th e r c o u rt . . . . T h e c h a llen g e s P lain tiffs h a v e ra ise d in o th e r c o u rts to th e in v a lid ity , il leg a lity and uncons t i tut i onal i tyof the code s and pl ans ar e notbefor e thi s C our tfor deci s i on. ” O n A pr i l 11, 2005, the di s tr i ctcourthel d a s um m aryj udgm ent hear i ng. A t t empt i ng t o cl ar i fyL andow ner ’ s ar gum ent , t he fol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace :- 10 -

[C ouns el forL andow ner s ] : W e’ r e notas ki ng y ou t o rul e on the zo n ing co d e a n d to g et i n to the w ee d s o f th e z o n ing co d e. T h is i sn ’t a c a se w h e re w e ’re sa y in g , g e e , this is ro u g h lyp ro p o rtio n a l o r it i s n’ t . W e’ ve gi ven y ou exampl es , y ourH onorand – T h e C o u rt: L e t m e m a k e su re I u n d e rsta n d th a t. A s I u n d e rsta n d it fr om y ourbr i ef, y ou’ r e notas ki ng m e t o rul e on the l egal i tyor ill e g a lityo f

th e c o d e s o r p lan s o r th in g s lik e th a t th a t ar e in v o lv e d in thi s cas e. [ C o u n se l fo r L a n d o w n e rs] : T h a t’s c o rre c t. Fi ndi ng t hatno courthad rul ed the r el evantzoni ng or di nance s t o be i l l egal or uncons t i tut i onal , and thatL andow ner s had w ai ved s uch a c hal l enge i n the i ns t ant c a se , the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t L a n d o w n e rs h a d p re se n ted n o p re d ica te a c ts to su p p o rt a R IC O c laim . A c c o rd in g ly , ito ra llyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r of C o u n tyO ffici als. L an d o w n ers n o w ap p ea l from that o rde r. II W e fi r s ta d d r e s s wh e th e rLa n d o wn e r s h a d s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g t h e i rRI CO claim . A lth o u g h the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t add ress the issue , w e a re u n d er a cont i nui ng obl i gat i on t o ens ur e thatt he di s tr i ctcourthad j ur i s di ct i on overt he cas e as an i ni t i al m att er . See Local 514 T r ans p. W or ker s U ni on of A m . v. Ke a t i n g , 3 5 8 F . 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 9 n . 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) I n o r d e rt o b r i n g a RI CO c l a i m, a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1962, w hi ch cons i s t s of four el ement s : “( 1) conduct( 2) of an e nt erpr i s e ( 3) t hr ough a patt ern ( 4) of
r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty . ” See Sedi m a, S. P. R . L . v. I m r ex C o. , 473 U . S. 479, 496 ( 1985) ( footnot e omi t t ed) . A “patt ern of r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty ” musti ncl ude atC ountyO ffi ci al s ar gue thatL andow ner s do nothave s t andi ng beca us e the 4 a lle g e d R IC O v io la tio n s w e re n o t th e p ro x im a te c a u s e o f L a n d o w n e rs ’ i nju ri e s . A bs ents uch ca us at i on, of cour s e, t her e i s no s t andi ng t o br i ng a cl ai m . See D eck, 3 4 9 F . 3 d at 12 5 7 . L an d o w n er’s the o ryo f c au sati o n , to the ex tent su ch a the o ry m a yb e d isc e rn e d f

ro m th e ir c o m p lain t, i s n e b u lo u s; th is is b e c a u se C o u n ty O ffi ci al s ar e notal l eged t o have t aken de fi ni t i ve s t eps t o bl ock deve l opm entof L andow ner s ’ par cel s . N everthel es s , t aki ng L andow ner s ’ al l egat i ons t o be true, w e ar e s at i s fi ed theyhave metthei rbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a ca us al connec t i on b e tw e e n C o u n ty O ffic ia ls ’ a c tiv itie s a n d s o m e inju ry to th e irb u s in e s s o r p ro p e rt y . See Sedi m a, 473 U . S. at498- 99 ( gener al l yt aki ng a l i ber al vi ew of ca us at i on r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h R I C O s t a n d i n g , a n d r ej e c t i n g a “ r a c k e t e e r i n g i nj u ry” req u ir em en t) . - 11 - l eas ttw o pr edi cat e ac t s . D eck v. E ngi neer ed Lam i nat es , 349 F. 3d 1253, 1257 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A d d iti o n a lly , “a p lain tiff h a s s tan d in g to b rin g a R IC O c laim o n lyif h e w as injured in h is bu sine ss o r pro p ertyb yrea so n o f th e d efen d an t’ s vi ol at i on of § 1962. ” I d. I n thei rcompl ai nt , l andow ner s des cr i be the al l egedl yext or t i onat e conduc t o f a “ C o u n ty E n terp rise ” in n o sm a ll a m o u n t o f d e tail. A lth o u g h m a n yo f th e a c ts cons t i tut i ng an al l eged pa t t ern of r acke t eer i ng act i vi tyi nvol ve non- part i es , as n o te d a b o v e , L a n d o w n e rs a ls o a lle g e s e v e ra l p re d ic a te a c ts d ir e c te d to w a rd th e m . T heyfur therchar ge thatthes e ac t s , w hi ch theychar act er i ze a s att empt ed theftby ext or t i on, damaged them byr educi ng the deve l opm entpot ent i al ( and thus t he val ue) of thei rpr opert i es . T hes e al l egat i ons ar e notconcl us ory , nordo they “cl ear l yappea r [] t o be i m m at er i al and made s ol el yfort he purpos e of obt ai ni ng juri sd ict ion . ” B ell v . H o o d , 3 2 7 U . S . 6 7 8 , 6 8 2 (19 4 6 ). A s su ch , theyare su ffici en t t o co n fe r R IC O stan d ing . C o u n tyO ffici als’ arg u m en ts t o the c o n tr ary 4- 12 -

go t o w hetherthe al l egat i ons ar e true, notw hethertheyw er e s uffi ci entt o confe r j ur i s di ct i on. III W e r evi ew a gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng the s ame l egal s t andar d us ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt . M ount ai n W . M i nes , I nc. v. C l evel and- C l i ffs Iro n C o ., 4 7 0 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n lyw h e re th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t an d o n e p a rtyis e n tit led to j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. F e d . R. Ci v . P . 5 6 ( c ) . To s u c c e e d o n a RI CO c l a i m, L andow ner s m us tpr ove: ( 1) conduct , ( 2) of an e nt erpr i s e, ( 3) t hr ough a patt ern, of ( 4) r acke t eer i ng act i vi tycons i s t i ng of atl eas tt w o pr edi cat e ac t s . D eck, 349 F . 3 d at 12 5 7 ; see a lso R o b b ins v . W il k ie, 4 3 3 F . 3 d 7 5 5 , 7 6 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cert . gr ant ed, 127 S. C t . 722 ( 2006) . U nder18 U . S. C . § 1961, i ns t ance s of ext or t i on oratt empt ed ext or t i on qual i fyas pr edi cat e ac t s . T he H obbs A ctdefi nes ext or t i on as “the obt ai ni ng of pr opertyfr om another , w i th hi s cons ent , i nduced by
w r ongful us e of a ctual orthr eat ened for ce, vi ol ence , orfea r , orundercol orof offi ci al r i ght . ” 18 U . S. C . § 1951( b) ( 2) . A s t he Supr eme C our thas not ed, t he H obbs A ctadopt ed the comm on l aw defi ni t i on of ext or t i on w i th r es pectt o offi ci al
m i s conduct . E vans v. U ni t ed St at es , 504 U . S. 255, 263- 64 ( 1992) . A t t empt ed e x to rtio n “ u n d e r c o lo r o f o fficia l rig h t” is “ a p u b lic o fficia l’s a ttem p t to o b tain
m oneynotdue hi m orhi s offi ce. ” U ni t ed St at es v. T r outm an, 814 F. 2d 1428, 1 4 5 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ).- 13 - A B efor e addr es s i ng the mer i t s of Landow ner s ’ cl ai m , w e mustdet erm i ne the s cope of thei rw ai verbel ow . W e w i l l notcons i dercl ai m s t hatw er e w ai ved i n t he d istric t co u rt. O ’C o n n o r v . C ity& C o u n tyo f D e n v e r, 8 9 4 F .2 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). In th e ir re sp o n se to C o u n tyO fficia ls’ m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, L andow ner s s t at ed: “Pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enge t o the zoni ng and deve l opm entpl ans and code s i s anothercas e i n anothercourt . . . . T he cha l l enges Pl ai nt i ffs have
r ai s ed i n ot hercourt s t o t he i nval i di ty , i l l egal i ty , and uncons t i tut i onal i tyof the codes and pl ans ar e notbefor e thi s C our tfordeci s i on. ” ( emphasi s added) . T hey re a ffir m e d th is p o s itio n a t th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t h e a ri n g . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill
n o t ru le o n th e “ in v a lid ity , il leg a lity [ , o r] u n c o n stitu tio n a lity ” o f S u m m it C o u n ty ’s G e n e ra l P lan o r its D e v e lo p m e n t C o d e . A s a g e n e ra l m a tter, w e g iv e a ll s t a tu t e s a p r e s u mp t i o n o f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i tya n d we mu s ta p p l yt h e s a me pr es um pt i on t o t he or di nance s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pom pey , 264 F. 3d 1176, 1 1 7 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h is h o ld in g la y s w a s te to m u c h o f L a n d o w n e rs ’ a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. L andow ner s ar e pr ecl uded fr om ar gui ng thatt he zoni ng s cheme: ( 1) depr i ves the m of the i rFi fth Am e nd mentr i gh t s un de rD ol a n v . Ci tyof Ti ga r d, 51 2 U. S. 3 7 4 , 3 9 1 (19 9 4 ), o r N o ll an v . C al. C o astal C o m m ’n, 48 3 U . S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (19 8 7 ); ( 2) i m pos es unr eas onabl e exa ct i ons i n vi ol at i on of U t ah l aw , s ee BanberryD ev. C orp. v. S. J or dan C i ty , 631 P. 2d 899, 905 ( U t ah 1981) ; or( 3) contr avene s U t ah- 14 -

C o d e A n n . § 5 3 A -2 0 -1 0 0 .5 b y re q u irin g sc h o o l im p a c t fe e s. L a n d o w n e rs s e e k to focus ouratt ent i on on the ac t s of C ountyO ffi ci al s r athert han the or di nance s themsel ves , butw e fa i l t o s ee how act i ons t aken unde rt he di r ectauthor i ty , and forthe purpos e of e nfor ci ng a val i d or di nance can pos s i bl ybe dee m ed ext or t i onat e. W e r ej ectL andow ner s backdooratt empt t o r evi vi fyt hei rw ai ved cl ai m s. B Sens i ng, perhaps , thatthe s cope of t hei rw ai vercr eat es a s ubs t ant i al i m pedi m entt o s ucce s s on thei rR I C O cl ai m s , L andow ner s depl oya fa l l back ar gum ent . T heyr ead ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n R obbi ns fort he pr opos i t i on even w h e n a n o ffic ia l a c ts w ith le g a l a u th o ri ty, h is a c tiv itie s m a ys till b e e x to rt io n a te . I n thatcas e, pl ai nt i ff Robbi ns br oughta R I C O cl ai m agai ns tB ur eau of L and M a n a g e m e n t (“ B L M ” ) p e rso n n e l. R o b b in s, 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 6 7 . In a ttem p tin g to obt ai n a r i ght
- of- w ayforthe B L M , defe ndant s t ook a numberof adve r s e ac t i ons a g a in st R o b b in s, in c lu d in g : “r e f u sin g to m a in tain th e ro a d p ro v id in g a c c e ss to R obbi ns ’ pr operty , canc el l i ng R obbi ns ’ s peci al r ecr eat i on us e perm i tand gr azi ng pr i vi l eges , br i ngi ng unfounded c r i m i nal char ges agai ns tR obbi ns , t r es pas s i ng on R obbi ns ’ pr i vat e pr operty , and i nt er fer i ng w i th R obbi ns ’ gues tcatt l e dr i ves . ” I d. a t 7 6 8 . D e fe n d a n ts a rg u e d th a t th e se a c tio n s c o u ld n o t su p p o rt a R IC O c laim b e c a u s e th e yh a d l e g a l a u th o r i tyt o t a k e e a c h o f t h e m. Rej e c t i n g t h i s d e fe n s e , we hel d:- 15 -

A l though D efe ndant s do notenumer at e s peci fi c r egul at orypr ovi s i ons p e rm itt in g e a c h o f

th e ir a c tio n s, th e re g u lato rya u th o ritym a ye x ist. N everthel es s , w e conc l ude thati f D efe ndant s engage d i n l aw ful act i ons w i th an i nt entt o ext or ta r i ght
- of- w ayfr om R obbi ns r ather th a n w ith a n in ten t to m e re lyc a rryo u t th e ir re g u lato ryd u ties , the ir c o n d u c ti s a c t i o n a b l e u n d e rRI CO . Id . (fo o tn o te o m itte d ). R el y i ng on R ob bins, L and ow ners ar gu e t hat even thoug h C ou ntyO ffi ci al s’ a c tio n s w e re a u th o riz e d b yth e z o n in g o rd in a n c e s, th e ir in ten t to e x to rt p ro p e rty gi ves r i s e t o R I C O l i abi l i ty . L andow ner s r ead t oo m uch i nt o R obbi ns . I n that c a se , w e n o ted th a t “C o n g re ss m e a n t to p u n ish a s e x to rtio n a n ye ffo rt to o b tain pr opertybyi nher ent l yw r ongful m eans , s uch as for ce orthr eat s of for ce or c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n .” Id . at 7 6 9 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e sp e c ifica lly di s t i ngui s hed betw een “ m er el yenfor ci ng the l aw ” and us i ng “otherw i s e l aw ful author i tyt o ext ort . ” I d. at770. A l though B L M offi cer s m ayhave ha d the pow er t o, forexampl e, r evoke Robbi ns ’ s peci al r ecr eat i on us e perm i t , theydi d s o foran i m pr operpurpos e – t o har as s R obbi ns . I tw as notthe us e of a uthor i tyw e dee m ed
w r o n g f u l , b u tt h e a b u s e o f

a u th o r i ty. T he p res ent cas e bears l i t t l e res em blance t o R ob bins. W hereas i n thatcase R obbi ns al l eged a patt ern of har as s i ng and puni t i ve ac t s thatw er e both t ar get ed at h im a n d w e ll o u tsid e th e b o u n d s o f n o rm a l B L M p ra c tice , C o u n tyO fficia ls
m er el yengage d i n the norm al admi ni s tr at i ve dut i es r equi r ed t o enfor ce the zoni ng or di nance s . L andow ner s do notal l ege thattheyw er e tr eat ed anydi ffe r ent l ythan- 16 -

otherSum m i tC ountydevel oper s , al l of w hom ar e s ubj ectt o the per form ance z o n in g sy ste m a d m in iste re d b yC o u n tyO fficia ls. N o n e o f th e p re d ica te a c ts di r ect ed t ow ar ds L andow ner s can be under s t ood as “i nher ent l yw r ongful ” as that ter m is u se d in R o b b in s. 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 6 9 . M o st o f th o se a c ts w e re sim p lyC o u n ty O ffi ci al s expl ai ni ng t o L andow ner s ei therhow the zoni ng s cheme w or ks , or rejec tin g a lleg a tio n s o f th e sc h e m e ’s in v a lid ity . T h e o n lya c t th a t co u ld p lau sib ly be ca l l ed w r ongful ( i n the s ens e thati tw as i nacc ur at e) i s B ar i l l e’ s s t at ementat the Pace M eet i ng t hatw et l ands ar eas m us tbe mai nt ai ned as open s pace , w hi ch L andow ner s cont end i s contr aryt o the or di nance ’ s t ext . O ne i s ol at ed i nci dentof a lleg e d lym isc h a ra c ter izin g a z o n in g o rd in a n c e , d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, co n stitu te e x to rt io n u n d e r § 1 9 5 1 (b )( 2 ). W e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtw as c o rrect i n fin d ing L an d o w n ers c o u ld n o t p ro v e th e e x is te n c e o f a n yp re d ic a te a c ts , a s re q u ir e d b y§ 1 9 6 1 . A c c o rd in g ly , su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te a n d th e c a se w a s p ro p e rly d ism iss e d . T o a llo w L a n d o w n e rs to m o v e fo rw a rd o n th e ir R IC O c laim w o u ld pr ovi de an a l t ernat i ve ave nue t o br i ng a fa ci al oran as - appl i ed cha l l enge t o a sta tu te’ s v a lid ityb ya lleg in g th a t o fficia ls’ e n fo rc e m e n t o f th a t sta tu te is ext or t i onat e. W e fi nd no bas i s fors uch an appr oach i n R I C O ’ s t extnori n the l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof the A ct . A s t he di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ynot ed, s uch a hol di ng w oul d put“the ca r tbefor e the hor s e. ”- 17 - IV AFF I RM ED .