Opinion ID: 707858
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of RICO Claim

Text: 3 The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), requires proof of '(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.'  United Energy Owners Comm., Inc. v. United States Energy Management Sys., Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 362 (9th Cir.1988) (citation omitted). Northern's complaint founders on the third element. In order to establish a pattern of racketeering activity, a plaintiff must allege at least two related predicate acts that amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239-40, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 2900-02, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). 4 Under RICO, continuity can refer either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 241, 109 S.Ct. at 2902; see also Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, No. 93-16537, slip op. 11841, 11847-48 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 1995). To demonstrate continuity over a closed period, a plaintiff may prove a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902 (emphasis added). 5 The acts relied upon by Northern did not occur over a substantial period. In fact, acts by Bear Stearns covered just a little over two months and acts of Dean Witter three months or less. Thus, the acts do not meet the closed period definition of continued criminal activity. See id. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. Also, nothing in the record suggests that Vaughn and the Brokers, the enterprise identified by Northern in its complaint, posed a future threat of repeating the conduct. Northern failed to demonstrate a threat of continued wrongful activity. See id.; Allwaste, at slip op. 11848; Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Florida, 937 F.2d 447, 450-51 (9th Cir.1991). The short term manipulation of the Brokers' services by Vaughn was not of a nature to project a threat of repetition into the future. Because the RICO claim clearly fails on this ground, we need not, and do not, consider whether it could also fail for lack of direct injury. Moreover, the record makes it apparent that the district court could reasonably conclude that amendment would be futile. See Allwaste, at slip op. 11854.