[DO NO T PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 10 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 2 :1 0- cv -0 00 99 -WCO E. DARRELL MOORE, et al ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us MELVIN TOLBERT, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 18 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, JORDAN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURIAM : F e l i c i a S c r oggs , E

. D ar

re ll Moo re , an d I- 85 G ar ag e an d T ow ing , I n c . s u e d R o b e r t Ru ss el l III, Mar k Abr uz zi no , R e b e c c a Dav is , a nd th e Ci ty o f Pen de rg ras s, al le gi ng th at th e de fen da nt s fir ed th em fro m th ei r go ve rn m en t job s be cau se of th ei r fri en ds hi p

Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 1 of 14w ith a gr oup of w his tle blo w er s. T he de fe nda nts ’ ac tio ns, the pl ai nti ff

s al le ge d, vio la te d
t h e i r F i r s t A m e n d

m e n t r i g h t t o i n t i m at e as soc ia tio n. T he de fe nda nts al so al le ge dly ac te d in co nc ert in su ch a way as to vi ol at e th e Rac ke te er In flu e n c e d an d Co rru pt Org an iz at io ns Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1 9 6 1– 19 68

. The de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th ei r m ot io n. The pl ai nt iff s no w ap pe al , an d, aft er re vi ewin g t he reco rd , th e b rie fs , and th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts , we affi rm . I The fact s, v ie wed in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ffs , are as fol lo ws. Pen de rg ras s, Georg ia , is a sm al l to wn abo ut 60 m il es no rth eas t of Atlan ta

. E.
Darre ll Mo or e, own er an d pr es id en t of I-8 5 Garag e an d To w i n g , In c., li ve d in
Pen de rg ras s, as di d h is da ug ht er, Fel ic ia Scro gg s. In 2002 , I- 85 G ar ag e be ca

m e the ex cl us iv e to win g co m pa ny fo r th e Pender gr as s Po li ce Dep art m en t, al th ou gh it s wor k was al way s on an on -cal l, as -n eed ed ba si s. Mr.
Mo or e, as pr es id en t of I-8 5 Garag e, of co ur se he lp ed in th e to win g op erat io ns . Mrs

. Scro gg s, fo r he r pa rt, wo rk ed for Pen de rg ras s as a li br ari an an d d ep ut y co ur t cl erk

. In 20 09 , th ree Pen de rg ra s s r e s i d en ts wou ld ig no re th e ad vi ce of Nicc ol o Mac hi av el li th at “ [t]he re is no th in g m or e di ffi cu lt to ta ke in ha nd , m or e pe ril ou s t o

co nd uc t, or m or e un cert ai n in it s su cces s, th an to ta ke th e le ad in th e in tro du ct io n of

a ne w o r d e r of th in gs .” N IC C O LÒ M A C H IA V E LLI , T H E P R IN C E 28 (W. K. Mar rio t tr.,

2 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 2 of 14Vero gl y

ph ic Pu bl is hi ng 20 09 ) (1 53 2)

. Kath eri ne Ri nt ou l, W il li am Garn er, an d Sco tt Ro ge rs be cam e “ whi st le bl owe rs ” ag ai ns t th e pe rcei ve d Pen de rg ras s st at us qu o. The y

r a i s e d a r u c k u s a b o u t P e n d e r g r a s s ’ c i t

y o f f i c i a l s , i n p a

r t i c u l a r M e l v i n T o l b e r

t ( t h e m a y o r )

an d R ob ert Ru ss el l, III (th e ci ty adm in is tra to r an d c hi ef o f po li ce).
M r . M o o r e was a fri en d of Mr. Ru ss el l, an d, as no te d, hi s co m pa ny was t h e Pen de rg ras s Po li ce Dep art m en t’s ex cl us iv e to win g co nt ract or . Mr. Mo or e, ho wev er, kn ew Mr. Garn er as well

. Mr. Mo or e an d Mr. Garn er so m et im es at e m eal s, watc he d
te le vi si on , wor ke d on cars , an d wen t sh oo ti ng to ge th er. Lik e he r fat he r, Mrs

. Scro gg s kn ew Mr. Garner

. Mr. Garn er’s wife wou ld so m et im es ba bysit Mrs

. Scro gg s’ ch il d,

an d Mrs

. Scro gg s wou ld br in g Mr. Garn er hi s pa y ch eck

. In ad di ti on , Mrs

. Scro gg s ha d a fri en ds hi p wit h Ms

. Ri nt ou l. The y wor ke d cl os el y at Ci ty Hall , an d Ms

. Ri nt ou l

was a wed di ng at te nd an t at Mrs

. Scro gg s’ wed di ng . Mrs

. Scro ggs thus co ns id ered Mr. Garn er an d M s. Ri nt ou l— two of t he th ree wh is tl eb lo wers —p ers on al fri en ds

. Mr. Mo or e an d Mrs

. Scro gg s be cam e em br oi le d in th e po l it ic al up he av al

. In Aug us t of 200 9, Mr. Ru ss el l t ol d M r. Mo or e to en d hi s frie nd sh ip wit h Mr. Garn er. Mr. Mo or e sa id th at he ob ey ed Mr. Ru ss el l’s di re c t i v e. By Octo be r 16 , 20 09 , th e

co nt ro ve rs y ha d in te ns if

i e d , an d th e Ja ck so n Co un ty Su pe rio r Co ur t he ld a he ari ng

on whe th er to reca ll Pen de rg ras s’ el ect ed of fic ia ls

. By no w two fact io ns ha d em erg ed

. A lo cal ne wsp ap er ed it or an d Mr. Garn er co m m an de d on e fact io n, whi le Mr. Ru ss el l

3 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 3 of 14an d Mr. Tol be rt le d th e ot he r fact io n. Mr. Mo or e at te nd ed th e reca ll he ari ng be cau se

Mrs

. Scro gg s ha d so m eh ow be en se rv ed wit h th e reca ll pe ti ti on . At th e he ari ng , Mr.
Mo or e sa t ne ar Mr. Garn er an d th e ne wsp ap er ed it or , an d he sp ok e wit h bo th of th em . Mr. Mo or e h ad no po li ti cal m ot iv e fo r si tt in g n ear M r. Garn er. Afte r th e reca ll he ari ng , Reb ecca Dav is —a Pen de rg ras s po li ce and pr ob at io n of fic er— cal le d th e 9- 1- 1 di sp at ch cen te r an d as ke d th at I-8 5 Garag e be ta ke n of f th e
t o w i n g l i s t

. U

p o n l e a r n ing tha t I- 85 G ar ag e w oul d n o l o n g e r t o w c a r s f o r t h e P e n d e r g r a s s Po li ce Depart m en t, Mr . Mo or e b ecame part sl eu th . He reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns wit h
Ms

. Dav is , Mr. Ru ss el l, an d Mar k Abr uz zi no (a Pen de rg ras s po li ce of fic er). In th es e

re co rd ing s, Ms

. D av is, Mr

. Ru sse ll, an d Mr

. A br uz zi no m ad e one thi ng cl ea r: the y w er e
up se t with Mr. Moo re beca us e of hi s frie nd sh ip wit h Mr. Garn er. A nd Mr. Moo re’s
ap pe ar an ce o f s u

p p o r t f o r Mr

. G ar

ne r an d the w his tle blo w er fa ct ion at the re ca ll he ar ing si m il arl y en rag ed Ms

. Dav is , Mr. Ru ss el l, an d Mr. Abr uz zi no , who co nf

es se d in th e

r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a

t i o n s t h a t t h e y ( a n d M r . T o l b e r

t ) r e m o v e d I

- 8 5 G a

r a g e a s the ex cl usi ve
to win g co m

pa ny fo r th e Pen de rg ras s Po li ce Dep a r tm en t be cau se of Mr. Mo or e’s fr i e n d s h ip w ith Mr

. G ar

ne r. E ve ntu al ly , Pe nde rg ra ss fi re d Mr s. Sc ro ggs too , ap pa re ntl y be cau se of h er fri en ds hi p wi th Mr. Garn er an d M s. Ri nt ou l.
Mrs

. Scro gg s an d Mr. Mo or e, al on g wit h I-8 5 Garag e, su ed Pen de rg ras s, Mr. Abr uz zi no , Ms

. Dav is , Mr. Ru ss el l, an d Mr. Tol be rt, al le gi ng th at th ey vi ol at ed Mrs

.
4 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 4 of 14Scro gg s’ an d Mr. Mo or e’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to int im at e as soc ia tio n an d that th ey

vi ol at ed th e Rac ke te er In flu en ced an d Co rru pt Org an iz at io n Act, co m m on ly kn own

as th e RIC O Act. Afte r th e pa rti es to ok de po si ti on s an d ga th ered al l rel ev an t e v id en ce, th e de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’

m ot io n, an d M r. Mo or e, Mrs . Scro gg s, an d I- 85 Garag e ap pe al ed

. II
W e e x e r c i s e p l e n a

r y r ev ie w in re vie w ing a sum m ar y j udgm en t or de r. Se e A l

v a r e z

v. Roy al Atl . De vel op er

s, In c. , 6 10 F.3 d 12 53 , 1 26 3 (1 1t h C i r . 2 0 1 0 )

. A c ou rt m us t
gr an t a su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n if “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 56 (a). Acco rd Cel ot ex Co rp
. v. Ca tr et t , 47 7 U.S. 31 7, 32 2 (1 98 6)

. The co ur t “ m us t vi ew al l the ev iden ce an d al l fact ua l in fere nc es reas on ab ly dr awn fro m th e ev id en ce in the lig ht

m ost favo rab le to th e no nm ov in g part y . ” Ste wa rt v. H

appy H er m an’ s Ch es hir e B rid

ge , In c. , 11 7 F .3d 12 78 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).
III A
T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t itu tio n, thr ough the F i r s t A m e n d m e n t , p r o t e c t s t

w o f o r m s

o f a s s o c i a t i o n : i n t i m a

t e a s s o c ia tio n an d ex pr es siv e as soc ia tio n. Se e M cC abe v. Sha r

r e t t ,
5 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 5 of 1412 F.3 d 15 58 , 15 62 –6 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ). The rig ht to in ti m at e as so ci at io n is “ th e

free do m to ch oo se to en te r in to an d m ai nt ai n cert ai n in ti m at e hu m an rel at io ns hi ps ,” whe reas the ri ght to ex pr es siv e as so ci at io n is “ th e free do m to as so ci at e fo r th e pu rp os e of en ga gi ng in act iv it ie s pr ot ect ed by th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, su ch as sp eech , as se m bl y , pe ti ti on for th e red res s o f gr ie va nc es , and th e ex erci se of r el ig io n.” Id

. at 1 56 3.
W he n it act s as an em

pl oyer, th e go ve rn m en t m ay no t con di ti on em pl oym en t
up on req ui rem en ts th at vi ol a te co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, whi ch wou ld in cl ud e th e

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s to in ti m at e an d ex pr es si ve as so ci at io n. Se e Ter ry v. Co ok , 8 66 F.2 d 37 3, 37 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 1 9 8 9)

. If th e go ve rn m en t co nd it io ns em pl oym en t on
req ui rem en ts th at vi ol at e co ns ti tu tiona l righ ts , th e em pl oyee m ay su e th e go ve rn m en t. Se e g en er al ly 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3.
Mr. Mo or e an d Mrs . S cro gg s co nt en d th at th e d efen da nt s v io la te d t he ir r ig ht
to int im at e as soc ia tio n, but the y ar e w ro ng. T o be sur e, we ha ve re co gni ze d tha t a da tin g rel at io ns hi p of ab ou t fo ur y ears c o n s t i t u t es an in ti m at e rel at io ns hi p fo r whi ch an

em plo y ee m ay not be fi re d. Se e W ils on v. Ta yl or , 733 F.2 d 15 39 , 15 44 (1 1th Ci r. 1984 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s as re co gn iz ed in Sc al a v. Ci ty of W in te r Par k , 11 6 F.3 d 13 96 , 14 02 n.4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ). Bu t th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s sa id th at th e bo nd s th at 1

We have noted that W

ilson has “a narr ow holding.” Chesser v. Sparks , 248 F.3d 1117, 1125 1 n.10 (11th Cir. 2001). 6

Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 6 of 14m eri t co ns ti tu ti on al pr ot ect io n are “ th os e th at at te nd th e cre at io n a nd su st en an ce o f

a fam il y —m arri ag e, ch il db irt h, th e ra isi ng an d ed uc at ion of ch ild

re n, an d co ha bi ta ti on wit h on e’s rel at iv es .” Rob er ts v
. U

. S

. J a y cees , 46 8 U.S. 60 9, 61 9 (1 98 4) (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. “ W he th er th e rig ht ex te nd s to ot he r rel at io ns hi ps de pe nd s on th e ex te nt to whi ch th os e at ta ch m en ts sh are th e qu al it ie s di st in ct iv e to fam il y rel at io ns hi ps . . . .” McCa be , 12 F.3d at 1 56 3.
Mr. Mo or e an d Mrs

. Scro gg s ha ve fa ile d to show tha t the y ha d a co nst itu tio na ll y
pr ot ect ed in ti m at e as so ci at io n wit h Mr. Garn er. In an affi da vi t, Mr. Mo or e sa id th at he kn ew Mr. Garn er, th at th ey so m et im es at e m eal s to ge th er, watc he d te l e v i s i on tog et he r, w or ke d on ca rs tog et he r, an d shot guns to ge th er. R. 1: 42 -5 at 3. Mrs

. Sc ro ggs,

m ean whi le , sa id th at Mr. Garn er’s wife wou ld so m et im es ba bysit he r ch il d. Sh e al so
st at ed th at sh e pi ck ed up Mr. Garn er’s pa y ch eck fo r hi m . R. 1: 46 -7 at 2– 3. The se fact s si m pl y are no t en ou gh to pl ace Mr. Mo or e’s an d Mrs

. Scro gg s’ rel at io ns hi ps wit h Mr. Garn er wit hi n th e bo un da rie s of m arri ag e or ch il db irt h. And th ey do no t sh are th os e
qu al it ie s t ha t ar e d is ti nc ti ve to fam il y rel at io ns hi ps . True , fam il ie s sh are m eal s, so m et im es watc h t el ev is io n t og et he r, m ig ht work

on cars to ge th er, and m ig ht go sh oo ti ng to ge th er, b ut th es e tra it s are not in he ren t to fa m ily re la tio nshi ps . Mr. Mo or e an d Mrs

. Scro gg s of fe r no fu rt he r fa ct ua l de ta ils ab out th ei r rel at io ns hi p wit h Mr. Garn er. On th is reco rd , we can no t co nc lu de th at th ei r

7 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 7 of 14re la tio nshi p (a n ap pa re ntl y ge ne ri c fr ie ndsh ip) co nt ai ne d qu al itie s dis tin ct ive to fa m ily rel at io ns hi ps . W e th eref

or e can no t con cl ud e th at th ei r rel at io ns hi p wi th Mr. Garn er

m er its co nst itu tio na l pr ote ct ion

. Se e V ie ira v. P re

sle y , 9 8 8 F

. 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 3 ( 8 t

h C i r . 1993 ) (“ The se co nd am en de d co m pl ai nt do es no t al le ge a cl os e, in ti m at e rel at io ns hi p of th e type reco gn iz ed as pr ot ect ed in Rob er ts . I t m erel y ch a r a c t eri zes Viei ra’s as so ci at es

as fri en ds

. . . .”); Co

pp v. Uni fi ed Sc h. Dis t. No

. 50 1 , 88 2 F.2 d 15 47 , 15 51 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 89 ) (“ [I]t can no t be de ni ed th at pl ai nt iff was tra ns ferr ed at le as t part ly be cau se of h i s [ f r i e n d s h i p ] w i t

h B l a c k b u r n . W e d o n o t b e l i e v e , h o w e v er , tha t pla int if f’ s r e l a t i o n s h i p wit h Bl ack bu rn is th e type of as so ci at io n th at th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t sh el te rs fro m
gove rn m en ta l act io n . . . .”); Rod e v. Dell ar ci pr et e , 84 5 F.2 d 11 95 , 12 05 (3 d Cir

. 1988 ) (“ Nor wou ld he r as se rti on th at sh e an d Hil em an were ‘goo d fri en ds ’ ap pe ar su ffi ci en t
to i n v o k e p ro te ct io n whe re th ei r rel at io ns hi p was no t ba se d on th e ‘creat io n an d

su st en an ce of a fam il y . ’ ”) ; Co rre a v. Arr il la ga , 90 3 F.2 d 49 , 57 (1 st Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ Ent ry in to th e co ns ti tu ti on al orb it req ui res m or e th an a m ere r el at io ns hi p.” ), ov er ru le d o n
ot he r gr ou nd

s by Edu ca do re s Pue rt or ri qu eñ os en Acci on v. Her ná nd ez , 36 7 F.3 d 61 (1 st Cir . 20 04 ). Si m il arl y , Mrs

. Scro gg s ha d no co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to in ti m at el y as so ci at e wit h
Ms

. Ri nt ou l. In an af

fi da vit , Mr s. Sc rogg s m en ti on ed th at sh e wor ke d cl os el y wit h Ms

. Ri nt ou l an d th at Ms

. Ri nt ou l was an at te nd an t at he r wed di ng . R. 1: 46 -7 at 2– 3. Bu t

8 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 8 of 14a co -wo rk er— ev en a wed di ng att en da nt —fa ll s s ho rt o f th e rel at io ns hi p o ne crea te s

wit h m ar ria ge or ch il db irt h. Se e Cu mmin gs v. DeKa lb Cn ty

. , 24 F.3 d 13 49 , 13 54 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (co -wo rk er rel at io ns hi p no t en ou gh ). And Mrs

. Scro gg s of fers no fact s th at

su gg es t he r rel at io ns hi p wit h Ms. Ri nto ul “ res em bl es a fam il y rel at io ns hi p.” McCa be , 12 F.3 d at 15 63

. In de ed , no th in g in th e reco rd in di cat es th at Ms

. Ri nt ou l’s fri en ds hi p wit h Mrs

. Scro gg s was un us ua ll y in ti m at e, an d so th e de fen da nt s di d no t vi ol at e Mrs

. Scro gg s’ rig ht to in ti m at e as so ci at io n h ere. I-8 5 Garag e al so br ou gh t a cl ai m fo r th e vi ol at io n of it s rig ht to in ti m at e

as so ci at io n. Bu t I-8 5 Garag e is a co rp or at io n, “ no t a bi ol og ic a l e n t i t y .” Se ni or Tr an se as te rn Len de rs v. Off ic ia l Co mm. of Uns ecu re d Cr ed it or s ( In re TOUSA, In c. ), 68 0 F.3 d 12 98 , 13 11 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ). Co rp or at io ns do no t ha ve “ fri en ds ” or “ fam il y

m em be rs ” in an y co he re nt se nse . It is unc le ar , the n, ho w co rpor at ion s ca n ha ve int im at e

as so ci at io ns at al l. I-8 5 Garag e o f f e r s no ex pl an at io n. In st ead , it res ts it s cl ai m vi cari ou sl y on Mr. Mo or e’s an d Mrs

. Scro gg s’ cl ai m s. Bu t, as ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, th os e cl ai m s fa il , and so to o d oe s I- 85 Garag e’s cl ai m . B O n ap pe al , the pla int if

fs al so ar gue that th e de fend an ts’ ac tio ns co ndi tio ne d the ir publ ic em plo y m en t on pol iti ca l as soc ia tio n—i

. e. , on s i d i n g w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ fa ct ion

ov er th e whi st le bl owe rs ’ fact io n. Se e Bea ur eg ar d v. Ols on , 84 F.3 d 14 02 , 14 03 (1 1t h

9 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 9 of 14Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ So m e em pl oyees do ha ve a ge ne ral Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht no t to be fir ed fo r po li ti cal pa tro na ge reas on s.”)

. As th e di st ric t co u r t r eco gn iz ed , “ th ere are so m e fact s in th e reco rd th at se em to carr y po te nt ia l po li ti cal ov ert on es th at wou ld po ss ib ly be pro te ct ed un de r th e ri gh t o f ex pr es si ve ass oc ia ti on .” R. 2: 67 at 2 6 n .6.
Bu t th e pl ai nt iff

s ne ve r rai se d a po li ti cal -as so ci at io n arg um en t in th e di st ric t

co ur t. Se e Res p. in Opp ’n to Mo t. fo r Su m m . J., R. 1: 42 -1 at 5 (“ The Defe n da nt s in fri ng ed up on th e pl ai nt iff s rig ht to free ly as so ci at e wit h ot he rs in a pu rel y so ci al or
pe rs on al le ve l.”) ; Res p. in Opp ’n to Mo t. fo r Su m m . J., R. 1: 42 -1 at 11 (“ I-8 5 an d Mr.
Mo or e’s pe rs on al rel at io ns hi ps ou twei gh ed th e Ci ty of Pen de rg ras s’ in te res t i n t hi s

m at te r.”); Ord er on Su m

m . J. Mo t., R. 2: 67 at 26 n.6 (“ [Mr

. Mo or e] ne ve r cl ai m s th at the re m ova l fr om the tow ing lis t w as pr em ise d o n p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s o r h i s l a c k o f p o l i t i ca l

su pp or t fo r Tol be rt or an y on e el se . In st ead , he co uc he s hi s cl ai m s pu rel y in te rm s of his fr ie n d s h i p w i t

h G a r n e r . ” )

. A n d w e d o n o t c o n s i d e r a

r g u m e n t s n o t r ai se d in the dis tr ic t

co ur t. Se e Acces s No w, In c. v. Sw

. Air li ne s Co

. , 38 5 F.3 d 13 24 , 13 31 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ).
T h u s , M r . M o o r e , M r s . S c r o g g s , an d I- 85 G a r a g e c a n n o t a s s e r t t h e i r p o l i t i c a l

- a s s o c i a

t i o n
arg um en t o n a pp eal

. C Fi na ll y , t he pl ai nt iff

s cl ai m th at Mr. A b r u z zi no , M s. Dav is , M r. Ru ss el l, an d
Mr. Tol be rt are “ pe rs on s” un de r th e RI CO Act, an d th at Pen de rg ras s is an “ en te rp ris e”

10 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 10 of 14un de r th e RICO A c t

. Th e pl ai nt iff s al so arg ue th at , to ge th er, th e de fen da nt s ha ve

co m m it te d a t l eas t t wo p red ic at e act s. We di sa gr ee.

“ [ I ] n o r d e r t o e s t a

b l i s h a f e d e r a l c i v i l R I C O v i o l a

t i o n u n d e r [ 1 8 U

. S

. C

. ] § 1 9 6 2 ( c ) , ”

a pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow “ (1 ) co nd u c t ( 2 ) o f an en te rp ris e (3 ) th ro ug h a pa tt ern (4 ) of rack et eeri ng act iv it y .” W il li ams v. Moh aw k In du s. , 46 5 F. 3 d 1 27 7, 12 82 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ). In a ci vi l RICO act io n, li ke th e on e he re, th e pl ai nt iff m us t fu rth er
pr ov e an in

jury to “ bu si ne ss or pr op ert y ” an d pro ve th at su ch in jury was “ by reas on of ” a vi ola tio n of the RI CO sta tute. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 19 64 (c). The pl ai nt iff s ha ve sh own

n e i t h e r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s w e r e e n g a g e d i n r a c k e t e e r i ng ac tiv ity nor tha t the de f e n d a n t s ’
pu rp or te d R ICO v io la ti on in jure d t he ir b us in es s o r pr op ert y . T he RI CO A ct de fi ne s “ ra ck et ee ri ng ac tiv ity ” as th r e e b r o a d c a

te gor ie s of cr im es de fin ed i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 19 61 (1 ). “ A pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y co ns is ts of th e

co m m iss ion of at le as t t

w o d i s t i n c t b u t r e l a

t e d p r e d i ca

te ac ts. ” Ir onw ork

er s Lo ca l U nio n 68 v. Ast ra Zen eca Pha rms
. , 63 4 F.3 d 13 52 , 13 58 n.1 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ). The pl ai nt iff s

as se rt the fo llo w ing pr ed ic at e ac ts: (1 ) br ibe ry ; (2 ) ex tor tio n; (3 ) inf

lue nc ing of w i t

n e ss;

an d (4 ) ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t a wit ne ss , vi ct im , or in fo rm an t. In pa rti cu la r, th e pl ai nt iff s li st th e fo ll owi ng pre di cat e act s:

• T h e d e f

e n d a n t s “ s o u ght to ch an ge ” Mr

. Moo re ’ s “ re co lle ct ion of s h r e d d e d do cu m en ts by th reat en in g th e arre st of hi s da ug ht er an d th e im pl ic at io n of hi s o wn ar res t.” B r. of

App el la nt s at 30

.
11 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 11 of 14• Mr. Ru ss el l “ de m an de d” th at M r . M o o re “ le av e th e Ja ck so n Co un ty Co ur th ou se on Octo be r 16 , 20 09 , to pr ev en t hi m fro m te st ifyin g” at th e reca ll he ari ng . Br. of

App el la nt s at 31

.

• Mr. Ru ss el l an d Mr. Abr uz zi no “ us e d i n ti m id at io n an d pr om is es of eco no m ic ga in in a t t e mp ts to in flu en ce Mr. Mo or e’s te st im on y .” The de fen da nt s “ us ed th reat s of arre st of ” Mrs

. Scro gg s “ to in ti m id at e” Mr. Mo or e. Br. o f App el la nt s at 31

.

• Mr. Ru ss el l an d Mr. Abr uz zi no “ th reat en ed th e arre st of ” Mrs

. Scro gg s, bu t th ey “ st at ed th ey wou ld no t pro se cu te he r if Mr. Mo or e co op erat ed wit h t he m .” Br. o f App el la nt s at 33

.

• Mr. Ru ss el l an d Mr. Abr uz zi n o “ st at ed th ey wou ld no t pr oc eed in th e inv es tig at ion ” of Mr s. Sc ro ggs if Mr

. Moo re “ w oul d ge t on the ‘ righ t sid e’ an d be a m em

be r of th e ‘fam il y ’ of Pen de rg ras s.” Br. of App el la nt s at 33

. W e co nc lu de , ho wev er, th at th e de fen da nt s di d no t un de rg o a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng
act iv it y . W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t th e pl ai nt iff s’ ch arac te riz at io n of th e reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns as th reat s. Pl us , th ere is no th in g on th e

reco rd to su gg es t th at Mr. Mo or e wou ld ha ve sp ok e n a t th e reca ll he ari ng . To th e

co nt rary, Mr. Mo or e te st ifi ed th at he di d no t wan t to ge t “ in vo lv ed in po li ti cs .” R. 3: 56
at 65

. W he n Mr. Ru ss el l as ke d whe th er he wou ld ha ve te st ifi ed at th e reca ll he ari ng , Mr. Mo or e rep li ed th at he wou ld n’t ha ve , be cau se he di d no t wan t to “ be in th e m id dl e

o f i t.” R. 2: 42 -1 8 at 17 –1 8. Si m pl y pu t, th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t th e pl ai nt if f s ’

as se rt io n th at th e de fen da nt s en ga ge d in rack et eeri ng act iv it y , a nd so Mr. Mo or e’s,
Mrs . Scro gg s’, and I-8 5 Gar ag e’s fed eral RICO cl ai m fai ls

.

12 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 12 of 14Reg ard le ss , th e pl ai nt iff s do no t di sp ut e th e di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e ba si s fo r
gr an ti ng th e de fen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n wit h reg ard to th e RICO cl ai m s. T o pr ev ail on the ir RI CO cl ai m , Mr

. Moo re , Mr s. Sc ro ggs, an d I- 85 G ar ag e ha d to show th ey su ffer ed an in

jury “ by reas on of

” th e de fe nda

nts ’ RI CO A ct vio la ti on s. A pl ai nt iff

m eet s th e “ by reas on of

” req ui rem en t if he sh ows a “ su ffi ci en tl y di rect in jury” fro m th e RICO vi ol at io ns an d “ pr ox im at e cau se .” W il li ams , 46 5 F.3 d at 12 87

. The di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d no t m et th e “ by reas on of ” req ui rem en t be cau se

“ [o ]the r th an th e wit ne ss ta m pe rin g at th e reca ll he ari ng , al l of th e al le ge d pr ed ic at e
act s oc cu rred af

te r ” th e de fen da nt s rem ov ed I-8 5 Garag e fro m th e to win g li st

. Se e R. 2 : 6 7 a t 3 2

. T h i s w a s a

n a l t e r n a t i v e a n d i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s f

o r g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

on th e pl ai nt iff

s’ RICO cl ai m . Yet, in th ei r in it ia l br ie f, th e pl ai nt iff s sp en d li tt le in k

on th is is su e, sa y in g in co nc lu so ry fas hi on th at th e de fen da nt s “ cau se d in jury to I-8 5,
Mr

. Moo re ’ s busi ne ss. ” Br

. of A ppe lla nts at 34

. “ Is su es rai se d in a pe rfu nc tor y m an ne r, wit ho ut su pp or ti ng arg um en ts an d ci ta ti on to au th or it ie s are ge ne ral ly de em ed to be waiv ed .” NLRB v. McCl ai n of Ga., In c. , 13 8 F.3 d 14 18 , 14 22 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). Hen ce, th e pl ai nt iff

s ha ve waiv ed th ei r cau sa ti on arg um en t, an d we up ho ld th e di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e ru li ng as we ll

. IV The dis tr ic t co ur

t’ s de ci sio n to gr ant th e de fen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n

13 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 13 of 14is affi rm ed

.

A F F I R M E D .

14 Case: 12-10102 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 14 of 14